I agree that this is not out of the ordinary for Exxon.
Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public.
This excerpt from one of the studies you posted shows that they were certainly not publicly vocal about it, though.
That’s not decades of time.
They did manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus, they did fund entities advancing climate denialism, they did lobby against regulatory measures. That is decades of time. Publishing climate change papers in the 70s does not absolve them of the crime of covering up the same information obtained through those papers.
I don’t get how highlighting this is not an unusual news and not a change in their behavior is frustrating to you.
They are continuing their brand of distracting the public/looking good. This is not a statement written out of the good of their hearts. And they have done so for halve a century.
Your responses seem to suggest that they have been open about this all along which comes off as pretty fucking disingenuous and ignores a lot of the other shit they did.
Have they created reports here and there which may or may not have been shown to the public at the time? Sure. So fucking what? That doesn’t really excuse anything at all. It doesn’t absolve them of what they have done, at all.
Yes. They have been using high profile studies for decades to distract the public. Those reports were important in the public discourse. Even more so then this current, widely ignored, paper.
There were parts where you did kinda seem to be giving them credit if you look at some if the posts without the context of your other comments (which they may not have seen?).
I have them credit for this not being a change in their behavior. True. I considered this paper to be in bad faith from the get go for it highlights the responsibility of their competition. Carbon footprints etc. are distractions. So is shooting your buddy in the leg to flee from an ever hungry polar bear. You cannot run. They will come. The bear must not regard you for this dutyful help in his ever hungry task. If it takes them longer in total they must feel disdain instead.
https://archive.org/details/ExxonClimateDocs
https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Supran_2017_Environ._Res._Lett._12_084019.pdf
They did something. And were vocal. Doesn’t mean they were good.
*after getting caught doing it for DECADES and lying about it
They were standard oil till 72. The landmark Exxon papers were published in 78. That’s not decades of time.
I agree that this is not out of the ordinary for Exxon.
This excerpt from one of the studies you posted shows that they were certainly not publicly vocal about it, though.
They did manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus, they did fund entities advancing climate denialism, they did lobby against regulatory measures. That is decades of time. Publishing climate change papers in the 70s does not absolve them of the crime of covering up the same information obtained through those papers.
Yes. And they are still doing that with this paper.
Jesus Christ… nope, I’m out. If someone else wants to pick it up from here feel free but I’ve had my fill of aggravation today.
I don’t get how highlighting this is not an unusual news and not a change in their behavior is frustrating to you.
They are continuing their brand of distracting the public/looking good. This is not a statement written out of the good of their hearts. And they have done so for halve a century.
Your responses seem to suggest that they have been open about this all along which comes off as pretty fucking disingenuous and ignores a lot of the other shit they did.
Have they created reports here and there which may or may not have been shown to the public at the time? Sure. So fucking what? That doesn’t really excuse anything at all. It doesn’t absolve them of what they have done, at all.
Yes. They have been using high profile studies for decades to distract the public. Those reports were important in the public discourse. Even more so then this current, widely ignored, paper.
I think they might be frustrated with the no change in behavior part?
Maybe they feel I advocate for instead of against them. This post looks like hope posting. I guess I should use more redundant and simple statements.
There were parts where you did kinda seem to be giving them credit if you look at some if the posts without the context of your other comments (which they may not have seen?).
I have them credit for this not being a change in their behavior. True. I considered this paper to be in bad faith from the get go for it highlights the responsibility of their competition. Carbon footprints etc. are distractions. So is shooting your buddy in the leg to flee from an ever hungry polar bear. You cannot run. They will come. The bear must not regard you for this dutyful help in his ever hungry task. If it takes them longer in total they must feel disdain instead.
Guess I am tired and wordy ^^