Thread by @GeoffreySupran

TODAY, in our peer-reviewed follow-up analysis putting to bed ExxonMobil's attacks on our work, I & @NaomiOreskes delineate "three distinct ways in which the data demonstrate [they] misled the public" about climate change: bit.ly/ExxonAddendum

Let me count the ways...THREAD

2/n: TLDR:

Both Exxon & Mobil variously engaged in both climate science & in climate denial, & continued to do so after they merged to become ExxonMobil.

"We now conclude with even greater confidence that Exxon, Mobil, & ExxonMobil Corp misled the public about climate change."

3/n: WAY1⃣: "From a statistical standpoint it is essentially certain" that "Exxon+ExxonMobil's private+academic documents predominantly acknowledge" climate science while ExxonMobil's ads "overwhelmingly promote doubt".

"This unambiguously reaffirms our original conclusion."

4/n: "The historical record categorically refutes ExxonMobil Corp’s recent claims that only Mobil was responsible for misleading advertorials (and for other misleading communications...).

Misleading advertorials did not cease when Exxon and Mobil merged."

5/n: Here's an example:

LEFT: 2004 ExxonMobil peer-reviewed paper. It takes for granted the reality of climate change, investigating "CO2 disposal" as a possible solution.

↕️

RIGHT: 2004 ExxonMobil ad in @nytimes. It alleges “debate over climate change” and "the human role".

6/n: The peer-reviewed article was highly technical, behind a paywall, and has been cited 24 times from 2004-2020.

↕️

The ad appeared on the Op-Ed page of @nytimes; the second-most popular page among its then ~4 million daily readers.

7/n: As we concluded in our original study, “ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it”.

8/n: WAY 1⃣ cont'd...

"Additionally, peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, & internal documents from Exxon & ExxonMobil Corp acknowledge the risks of stranded assets...whereas ExxonMobil Corp’s advertorials do not...

This imbalance has not been disputed by ExxonMobil Corp."

9/n: "Non-peer-reviewed Exxon & ExxonMobil Corp documents also communicate greater doubt about AGW as real & human-caused & solvable than peer-reviewed Exxon & ExxonMobil Corp publications...suggesting that [their] non-peer-reviewed communications...were sometimes misleading."

10/n: WAY2⃣: "Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil Corp misled with misinforming advertorials and non-peer-reviewed publications" that "were inconsistent with available scientific information."

11/n: On this point ⬆️ we report new evidence that just as #ExxonKnew, #MobilKnew too.

This 1994 internal Mobil budget proposal, for ex., shows Mobil spent tens of thousands of dollars per year funding scientists who were "world-wide leader[s] in earth & atmospheric studies."

12/n: "Benefits to Mobil Foundation" of this funding included "[t]echnical information &...first hand understanding of the role of the oceans in global warming".

H/t to @SharonKellyEsq for first reporting this document: theguardian.com/business/2019/…

13/n: "Mobil’s access to these same mainstream scientific resources preceded and paralleled its publication of advertorials attacking climate science and its implications, further demonstrating that Mobil knowingly misled the public."

14/n: WAY 3⃣: "Exxon & ExxonMobil misled with additional direct and indirect climate denial" despite "overwhelming [and undisputed] acknowledgement by both Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists that climate change is real and human-caused."

15/n: "To our knowledge, ExxonMobil has never disputed its history of direct & indirect climate denial." Here's an example per year from 2000-present.

To our knowledge, they have never corrected the record - they have never explicitly said climate change is real & human-caused.