Thread by @GeoffreySupran

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.

THREAD.

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:

https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/1109083684957810688

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.

https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/1005116088009543681?s=20

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.