ExxonMobil just attacked our 2017 research study, in which I and @NaomiOreskes showed they misled the public about climate change.

Here's our peer-reviewed response: bit.ly/ExxonReply.

2/n: We find that ExxonMobil's critiques, penned by company VP Vijay Swarup, "are misleading & incorrect."

Ironically, "thanks in part to his feedback, we can now conclude with even greater confidence that Exxon, Mobil, & ExxonMobil Corp have all misled the public."
3/n: As @NaomiOreskes and I summarise in The Guardian today:

"ExxonMobil is swinging for a way to discredit the work that demonstrates what they have done. Alas, it is a swing and a miss." theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
4/n: ExxonMobil's attack on our research is ironic.

In trying to dismiss our findings, they have inadvertently made them stronger.
5/n: As we summarise in our peer-reviewed rebuttal today, additional work we have done in response to ExxonMobil's criticisms "further demonstrates that both Exxon and Mobil separately misled the public, and continued to do so once they merged to become ExxonMobil Corp."
6/n: Among other things, we report new evidence that just as #ExxonKnew, #MobilKnew too. This 1983 internal Mobil report, for example, shows Mobil was well aware of scientific concerns that burning fossil fuels could heat the planet, melt the ice packs, and submerge cities.
7/n: Mobil’s access to mainstream climate science such as this preceded and paralleled its public attacks on that science, further demonstrating that Mobil misled the public.

Ref for 1983 Mobil report ⬆️: perma.cc/6A6Y-GQSF
8/n: Unable to disprove our findings, ExxonMobil have resorted to familiar tactics: doubt-mongering, character assassination, intellectual hit-jobs, & undisclosed conflicts of interest.

It's Big Tobacco product defense-101.
9/n: Their critique literally leans on a non-peer-reviewed report they commissioned, paid for, and used to defend themselves in court.

(Seriously, this isn't @TheOnion.)
10/n: Instead of subjecting their positions to independent scrutiny, as we (and all scientists) do, ExxonMobil paid an expert-for-hire to write something and stick it on the Internet, and then used it to falsely claim - in an academic journal - that our work has been refuted.
11/n: This sh!t has been going on for years. When we published our study in 2017, ExxonMobil responded immediately with a straw man, a falsehood, cherry picking, and ad hominem attacks. @NaomiOreskes and I corrected the record here: latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/…
12/n: Last year, when I was invited by EU Parliament to testify about ExxonMobil's history of climate denial, the company sent a private, now-leaked memo to Members of Parliament to try to smear me. I spoke about it here:
13/n: And I wrote about it here: euractiv.com/section/climat…
14/n: And for the past 3 years, ExxonMobil has been running a non-stop social media campaign accusing us of being part of a political conspiracy: of producing "manufactured" science at the behest of "a political campaign". It's had millions of views.
15/n: So to be honest, we hesitated whether to engage at all with such a bad-faith actor. Because they don’t need to win this debate, they just need to make it seem like there is one.

And personally speaking, we just don’t care what ExxonMobil says about us. 🤷
16/n: But professionally, ExxonMobil's attempts to discredit our research matter. In the face of mounting lawsuits (some informed by our work), surging public protests, and crumbling market value, they're trying to shoot down the historical record of what they have done.
17/n: Instead however, they have shot themselves in the foot.

Because ExxonMobil’s reaction to our work is nothing short of a case in point of the very deceptive behaviour we described in our study.
18/n: *ExxonMobil are now misleading the public about their history of misleading the public.*

And therein lies the greatest irony of all.

It's a smoking gun reminder that, behind the greenwash, the tiger has yet to change its stripes.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Geoffrey Supran

Geoffrey Supran Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeoffreySupran

5 Feb
NEW: In @nature today, my colleagues and I make the case that ending fossil fuel subsidies matters greatly, “in ways both material and political.” THREAD.

📰No pay wall: rdcu.be/b1fCr
2/n: My co-authors @SEI_Erickson, @harrovanasselt, Doug Koplow, @mlaz_sei, Peter Newell, @NaomiOreskes, & I publish this paper in response to this 2018 article by Jewell et al. that claimed emissions reductions due to cutting subsidies would be "small" ⬇️ nature.com/articles/natur…
3/n: This stood in stark contrast to earlier research by some of us, which found that, without subsidies, HALF of the US's future oil production would be unprofitable at $50/barrel oil prices. nature.com/articles/s4156…
Read 12 tweets
1 Dec 19
In 1977, Exxon scientist James Black warned executives of the "effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale." His knowledge of historical global temps & prediction of a "carbon dioxide induced 'super-interglacial'" (in black) was remarkably consistent w/ today's best models (red). 1/n
2/n: In @SPIEGELONLINE today, @rahmstorf discusses Exxon's early understanding of paleoclimate and its significance to ongoing climate litigation: spiegel.de/wissenschaft/n…

3/n: Exxon's original 1977 graph is here: insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/…
Read 9 tweets
20 Nov 19
NEW landmark @UNEP et al. report shows almost all countries' climate commitments ring hollow. While governments pledge to cut greenhouse gas *emissions*, they are simultaneously investing in fossil fuel *production* at double(!) the safe limit. THREAD.

2/n: This is cognitive dissonance on a global scale. It's like promising to go on a diet while simultaneously baking a cake.
3/n: As @CNN observes, the climate movement's years of calls to #KeepItInTheGround are based on science, yet "many of the world's governments are not heeding [scientists'] calls." cnn.com/2019/11/20/wor…
Read 8 tweets
5 Nov 19
"Asked to explain why Exxon’s climate-related ads are not political, @Twitter declined to comment. A Harvard researcher who studies Exxon for a living, however, did not hold back."

⬆️I chat today w/ HEATED/@emorwee.

⬇️A few follow-up thoughts... THREAD.heated.world/p/exxon-climat…
2/n: First, and most crucially, I declare my personal slogan henceforth to be: Not holding back since 2019™.
3/n: As I discuss with @emorwee, Mobil & ExxonMobil have pioneered issue advertising for decades, on climate change and every other topic of political concern to them. I know because I've read pretty much all of them. nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opi…
Read 13 tweets
29 Oct 19
🎙️ I was on the radio this morning @NPR @WBUR's Morning Edition with @bob_oakes, talking about how the fossil fuel industry has deceived - and is deceiving - the American people about climate change. #ExxonKnew #AmericaMisled

Read 4 tweets
28 Oct 19
Seriously @Shell_UKLtd, what the f***?

Is it any surprise the public sees climate crisis as an insurmountable problem of individual responsibility when fossil fuel co's promote unrealistic, cutesy 'alternatives' rather than, say, expansion & electrification of public transport?
@Shell_UKLtd @amywestervelt @MaryHeglar @leahstokes @KateAronoff @emorwee @NaomiOreskes @MichaelEMann @KHayhoe @billmckibben @350 Toss this onto the pile of fossil fuel industry climate propaganda targeting news and social media (scroll through threads to explore my growing compilation): twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!