This nine-part history of Exxon’s engagement with the emerging science of climate change is the result of an eight months-long investigation conducted in 2015. The stories span four decades, and are based on primary sources, including internal company documents dating back to the late 1970s; interviews with former company employees; and other evidence published for the first time by ICN.

We found that decades ago, Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research and then worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.

This series was named a finalist for the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, and earned national recognition from many other quarters.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28574283-searchresul...

I’ve happened to meet a number of researchers employed by large oil companies over the years, including many involved in the result of memos like this: making research into carbon capture and other mitigations a top corporate priority. Are there optical/PR reasons for investing in this research? Absolutely. Have they also been engaging in the science in good faith, and genuine intent that… in a world where climate action is desired, and net emissions are something to optimize for, they can anticipate this by genuinely funding research, and having their own research projects already underway that can address anticipated challenges? Also absolutely true.

Now, I can’t speak for, say, lobbying efforts. But the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met. Entire labs of people working for decades to think: can we make our processes cleaner, at the same time we rise to the challenges of global demand.

We should be celebrating, not condemning, this work.

> Sprow then laid out an agenda for how to achieve those ends.

> With modeling critical to climate science, he wrote, “it could be considered important to be at the forefront of this modeling effort.” Sprow proposed “supporting a person on staff at one of the leading modeling centers (e.g. Princeton) or by sending one of our people to work in such a center.”

The picture this article paints of academia seems pretty bleak to me as a layperson. I thought shady science by corps just meant publishing a few bad faith studies and pushing them hard in media, but apparently it's possible to do "incentive-driven science" in a fashion that lets you sow seeds that can influence decades of downstream research.

I would hope that the framework of science itself has guardrails to prevent these efforts from obscuring more globally relevant results in favor of "technically true" pieces that do everything the right way but are badly motivated and omit methodologies which lead to undesirable results. For people who have experience in this area - how much critical thinking do you need when reading papers on climate research? Can the research be good enough by itself on merit, or is any opinion incomplete without evaluating the journal, affiliation of the authors, funding sources, etc.?

That's rhetorical, obviously. The answer is absolutely nobody because money is the best insulator there is.

"They knew the risks"

Everybody knew the risks. Climate science has been researched at universities and published openly.

If politicians have failed to regulate, and consumers have enjoyed the benefits of (relatively) cheap fuel and energy, why would the fossil energy companies be singled out as the culprits? People wanted the high material standard of living that comes from (relatively) abundant available energy, cheaper and plentiful food that comes from abundant nitrogen fertilizers (made from natural gas). We were all part of this.

Truly damning stuff.

A limited liability company is just a machine, as is a car. Yet somehow when you drive one you shift your responsibility to the vehicle.

This needs to be fixed.

* https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/01/revealed-exx...

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/exxon-mobil-predicted-global...

From 2015, "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years"

* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-cl...

Turns out Exxon's climate science is pretty good:

* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

as, for example when I've tried to look up what remedies are proposed for things like excess "carbon emissions", the ideas seem inconsistent and all over the place, suggesting there is not really direct proof of man changing the climate by human actions (for example, planting "1 trillion trees" was suggested; now people aren't sure if that will solve the problem or not)

I could also see corporations and government creating environmental problems (like "man-made climate change", if it's real) and then offering solutions they design, for their own profit (as it's often the same groups of people running these operations in practice; although, this position is somewhat irrational as the leaders of such entities would be effectively poisoning themselves)

Also, I gather the HN consensus position is that non-renewables are harmful and that we can simply switch to renewables to solve issues related to (man-made) climate change. While I do like renewables in theory, and they could possibly cut down on a pollution (?), other more dramatic environmentalists point out that even renewables are probably not sustainable at some point as we will have more people than we have resources to supply them with. Alternatively, many people defensive of non-renewables point out that a lot of catastrophic environmental predictions did not remotely come to fruition.

So to recap: "climate change" is kind of vague and probably a distraction from tangible environmental issues we do agree on, and renewables either are not a sufficient solution to the problem of scarce resources running out or alternatively are not necessary to adopt to solve different environmental problems (although the economics are there and they will probably be adopted for a lot of their affordable benefits in coming years).

(Lastly, it's ironic that the tech community here which is against the over-use of non-renewables is probably passively accepting of AI datacenters which have amped up their consumption of even non-renewables to fuel their operations.)

I welcome discussion on the topic as I take somewhat of an uncommitted neutral view of if climate change is a "thing" or not (I rather would like to see discussion of more concrete solvable environmental issues).

It's frequently the same literal scientists arguing against the existence or severity or cause of things like cigarette-caused illnesses, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and yes, anthropogenic climate change. And there's a well-established playbook for how they do it too (exploit Fairness Doctrine, abuse inherent shape of scientific method, etc). Really a fascinating read if you care about this stuff.

1) Nuclear proponents (Fossil fuel people disguised as). They say we need to fund nuclear now because thats the only solution. We can't trust the Sun, because it ghosts often, falls sick and goes on vacations like its a European. They know it will never happen and if if its funded, will take at least 5 decades. Fossil fuel companies killed nuclear by fear mongering and funding 'environmental' groups, when it was a credible threat.

2) Commentors who shift the blame to people: "They asked for it, we produced it. They knew about climate change." Companies are just responding to what people want. Exxon is doing Gods work.

3) The carbon capture 'tech' evangelists. Just give big oil a few more trillions/year and they will direct air capture all the carbon molecules.

4) Carbon is good, trees need it (and some study showing something about trees and carbon)

5) Commentors who shift the blame to all of us. With some nonsense claim about their pension in Australia is now financially viable only because the pension fund (or SWF) invested in fossil fuels. We are all enjoying pensions because of fossil fuels.

This is a "fork found in kitchen" sort of discovery.

This release, Epstein files, Panama papers, etc.

It's like our generation has no desire to hold people accountable.

I won't deny that weather changes. Indeed, I believe the expression is "as unpredictable as weather".

Here are my two counter points. First: for everyone who thinks to punish Exxon, you have a brillian solution available to you. Just don't drive, and don't use products manufactured with pertoleum. If you don't want weather to change and believe that you are doing it, just don't do it. Don't use gasoline or anything that uses gasoline in the supply chain.

Second: let's not be too lopsided, surely there are reasons to reward, not just to punish. Let's pay Exxon for every warm, sunny day without rain. Or with rain when we want it. If the weather is agreeable - let's give credit where it's due - to Exxon! If our maladies are caused by them, surely our vitality and wellness is caused by them too? I'll wait.

Carbon capture is fraud. You can EASILY stop carbon emissions by switching to EVs, which are cheaper to buy and operate. Instead Govts want to spend trillions on top the $7T dollars/year subsidies to help oil companies recover more oil.

The COP summits are held in fossil fuel countries and discuss carbon capture.

Shell Is Looking Forward The fossil-fuel companies expect to profit from climate change. I went to a private planning meeting and took notes: https://archive.is/15Dj4

Edit: Adding abound's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50044917. The book is Merchants of Doubt.

Having read both the memo and article, maybe there is a language barrier here, but how is it "incredibly far from the sensationalized headline"?

Maybe this comes down to how one defines "deception", but I have a hard time seeing it not apply here and don't see any hyperbole, overpromising or inaccuracy in the title given the memos writing. Certainly not "incredibly far", even if we split hairs on what raises to being "deception".

I would not celebrate this work, it's typical corporate boss-pleasing. It's not some exhortation towards clean energy.

This is a claim that is very contrary to the prevailing view. If you wish others to be persuaded by this claim, I recommend that you provide some evidence for it, because on their own your statements are unconvincing.

Oil and gas companies strongly lobby for Republicans they know will remove any incentive for them to need to worry about the environment.

> I can’t speak for, say, lobbying efforts.

Even easier to deceive yourself if you blind both eyes.

This is a strawman (and a weirdly strong appeal to emotion for unclear reasons).

The claim is that their scientists were loudly saying internally their PR campaigns and climate claims were false and contrary to their findings. Executives read these memos and chose to do these anyways.

For instance:

> The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.

> Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”

edit: the single memo that you linked (actually one of many the article is discussing) is not supposed to be some smoking gun, it's useful to dispel any idea that there's a reasonable claim of ignorance on Exxon's part, and the date is especially notable: 1988. Basically any PR, legal, and lobbying work for at least 38 years is suspect because of what they actually knew.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

The captured carbon will be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Fossil fuel companies add a few trillion dollars in govt money, in addition to the $7T dollars in subsidies today (yale).

Carbon capture tech a 'complete falsehood', says Fortescue Metals chairman: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39373538

Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture & Storage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8

So this 1000 metric ton CO2 DAC plant could offset the activities of 100-400 vehicles in a year... minus the activities of the employees to get to the plant. That's what I wanna know. When are the workers going to stop driving 60 miles round trip to work? And how many need to be at work everyday at the plant? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38237920

Out of the 27 commercially operational CCS projects worldwide, 21 inject carbon dioxide into oil reservoirs to force out petroleum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36970085

Big Oil Helped Shape Stanford’s Latest Climate-Research Focus. Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability recently unveiled its first institutionwide research focus: greenhouse-gas removal. Taking tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere will be “essential” to limiting global warming, as a news release last month explained, and ideas will be marshaled from across the school to get it done. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35829500

It's really important uphold the law, but nothing really happens if the collective attitude won't change.

I fear the Children of Men style future we're stepping into.

I don’t mean generic “throw someone in jail because we all agree they’re evil amirite” posturing, but actual cases against someone based on evidence of breaking a law. Any law. It doesn’t even have to result in jail time to be a political career builder. Saying you’ve pursued and won cases against a “bad” company or executives is a huge boon to anyone in this current political environment that is highly against establishments. It’s universal, from Elizabeth Warren campaigning on her actions against Wall St to the entire “drain the swamp” phenomenon.

Reading the actual memo, not the journalists trying to make articles out of it, reveals a little more about why there isn’t the classic smoking gun here, which is a much simpler explanation for why nobody is going to jail than assuming that money has bribed, paid off, and outlawyered everyone in the country who stands to benefit politically from going after a real crime.

Doesn‘t Texas still have the death penalty?

1+1=…

And all of this is before you get into the question of whether they lied or were engaging in motivated reasoning. During COVID we had anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, seemingly without clear commercial reasons to lie. Should those people be thrown in jail as well?

However, there are certain aspects of the US society and political system that appear to be particularly well suited to the rise of big corps doing big evil things.

The system got a series of lucky breaks for about a century: immense natural resources, and the European economies destroying each other. This obscured the deep flaws in the system and has made it practically impossible for Americans to see them. Quite the opposite: whenever the flaws manifest, we try to solve them my entrenching them further.

I don't think that's it at all, it's that capital has no desire to hold people like Epstein and company accountable. That's an uncomfortable place to be in, and so it doesn't get talked about.

It's what leads to a sort of cheat code that the Bay Area investment scene has discovered - if you burn capital quickly enough to grow your revenue fast enough (even hamstringing profit to do so), and in doing so generate more investment interest and more capital attention, you eventually become Too Big To Fail, like Uber did, or the AI companies are doing now.