This month, the prestigious journal Science published an article demonstrating that decades ago, Exxon’s and ExxonMobil’s internal climate models “accurately” and “skillfully” predicted the climate warming effects of fossil fuels. Their research was consistent with the leading independent academic and government models of the time. The Science article finds that “Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused.”
Meanwhile, Exxon and ExxonMobil conducted PR campaigns to promote doubt about the unfolding climate crisis. Exxon and ExxonMobil directly, and through the American Petroleum Institute, funded propaganda organizations intent of deceiving the public about the climate crisis. Their corporate management recognized that their profitability would be in danger if they acknowledged what they themselves knew about the damages their products were and would do.
Their knowledge of the facts and their concurrent disinformation campaigns are central to numerous lawsuits filed by several states, counties and municipalities, including San Mateo County. For years, the defendant oil and gas companies have tied up these cases with various procedural maneuvers, however, when these cases finally come to trial, public understanding of the climate crisis will be part of the broader context for how they are decided. It is important to the objectivity of these cases that journalists not provide platforms for the transparently false propaganda of the oil and gas industry and their acolytes.
Alan - this article was also widely published in the European press. The reporters there asked what feasible energy alternatives could have been provided to products from the oil giants. So far that remains unanswered.
I'd be interested in the context on this. There are plenty of answers depending on the context. There are petroleum products for which there is currently not a good replacement, and that doesn't mean we need to keep emitting CO2 at catastrophic levels.
Again a distraction from the point: "Exxon Mobil's scientists were remarkably accurate in their predictions about global warming, even as the company made public statements that contradicted its own scientists' conclusions"
Mr. Mattlage, instead of another lecture on this global warming thing, perhaps you could let us know what you’re doing to address this catastrophe. Perhaps you could also tell us why COP conference attendees care so little about global warming that they’re taking over 400 jets to the conference, using loads of air conditioning, and eating plenty of beef. Seems to me that they’re not taking your Exxon study seriously, if at all, or they know something you don’t.
Good example, TY, of how to effectively leverage Exxon's propaganda strategy! Rather than discuss how climate change is killing people and what needs to be done to keep the planet habitable, let us discuss how many climate activists are flying around in jets and eating beef.
Another example of Westy avoiding questions... Rather than give us answers as to what, if anything, you’re doing to keep climate change from killing people and what you’re doing to keep the planet habitable, all you do is continue to ignore valid questions. We’re also waiting to know why it’s okay for your idol climate activists to emit tons of carbon emissions when they’re lecturing us about the evils of carbon. If those activists aren’t doing anything, it’s obvious they don’t feel emissions are an issue, so why should anyone else?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(5) comments
Alan - this article was also widely published in the European press. The reporters there asked what feasible energy alternatives could have been provided to products from the oil giants. So far that remains unanswered.
I'd be interested in the context on this. There are plenty of answers depending on the context. There are petroleum products for which there is currently not a good replacement, and that doesn't mean we need to keep emitting CO2 at catastrophic levels.
Again a distraction from the point: "Exxon Mobil's scientists were remarkably accurate in their predictions about global warming, even as the company made public statements that contradicted its own scientists' conclusions"
Mr. Mattlage, instead of another lecture on this global warming thing, perhaps you could let us know what you’re doing to address this catastrophe. Perhaps you could also tell us why COP conference attendees care so little about global warming that they’re taking over 400 jets to the conference, using loads of air conditioning, and eating plenty of beef. Seems to me that they’re not taking your Exxon study seriously, if at all, or they know something you don’t.
Good example, TY, of how to effectively leverage Exxon's propaganda strategy! Rather than discuss how climate change is killing people and what needs to be done to keep the planet habitable, let us discuss how many climate activists are flying around in jets and eating beef.
Another example of Westy avoiding questions... Rather than give us answers as to what, if anything, you’re doing to keep climate change from killing people and what you’re doing to keep the planet habitable, all you do is continue to ignore valid questions. We’re also waiting to know why it’s okay for your idol climate activists to emit tons of carbon emissions when they’re lecturing us about the evils of carbon. If those activists aren’t doing anything, it’s obvious they don’t feel emissions are an issue, so why should anyone else?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.