123
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Yes, that Exxon

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

*after getting caught doing it for DECADES and lying about it

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago

They were standard oil till 72. The landmark Exxon papers were published in 78. That's not decades of time.

[-] antheraeavx@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

Yes. And they are still doing that with this paper.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 0 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 1 points 6 days ago

I think they might be frustrated with the no change in behavior part?

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago

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.

[-] DudeImMacGyver@kbin.earth 1 points 6 days ago

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?).

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago

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 ^^

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2026
123 points (98.4% liked)

Climate

9015 readers
214 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS