The Australian government's belief that climate change is an existential crisis and, at the same, time having a huge immigration fuelled population growth policy must surely be contradictory. It is no wonder people remain skeptical

Irrelevant!

Dead right, watersnake. Not only do they bring in more unnecessary people while dole bludgers make up a number similar to the job vacancies, some wack job has come up with an idea to have more public holidays in the name of non-Christian immigrants who want to live here, but who want to keep up the mumbo jumbo of countries that couldn't support them, and get a holiday to do it.

WTF?

Here are some of the OLO comments from climate change deniers that were posted on one of my threads.

• All climate predictions have been rubbish

• At the time it was made it was a stab in the dark.

• Look how Covid turned out to be a minor inconvenience

• In the early 70s I remember a book in the school library saying that by 2000 the world would be out of oil (used to devalue scientific predictions)

• Predictions are much easier when you go backwards.

• Clearly you have little experience in reading forecasts, like prospectuses for projects like Sun Cable

• My take on the Exxon Mobil attack is that it reflects the desperation of the renewable energy industry

• Because Elliot wave theory is a poor tool for stock market investment the Exxon scientists just got lucky (summary not a direct quote).

• Either they knew about the cycle and pretended they forecast it, or they just presumed they knew why the temperature rose, and struck it lucky.

• how can we ascertain that these journalists were neutral or that these documents were not forged and recently planted there for them to find?

• any post-Thatcher research or measurements on this topic are inadmissible.

• Margaret Thatcher (by no means a "Lefty") needed scientists to "discover" global-warming so she could break the coal-miners unions (and introduce nuclear-power instead).

It will be interesting to see what further illogical nonsense the deniers can come up with.

When all this 'ExxonKnew' rubbish was first touted, various US states saw some easy money to be made by suing Exxon for knowingly causing environmental damage even though they were aware their product would cause AGW.

Suffice to saw all those law suits failed dramatically. Why? Well when you get past the hype upon which this thread's article is based, you find that Exxon didn't know. All the quotes that the hype is based on weren't Exxon saying these things would happen, just that these things (ie warming) were one of several possibilities.

They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions. They covered all angles as any good analysis should. But the alarmists have no understanding of covering all possibilities, since the 'settled science' permits only one viewpoint.

WTF?

mhaze states: "They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions. "

This of course is a nonsense :

analysis shows that, in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil scientists

(i) accurately projected and skillfully modeled global warming due to fossil fuel burning;

(ii) correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age;

(iii) accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected; and

(iv) reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming. Yet, whereas academic and government scientists worked to communicate what they knew to the public, ExxonMobil worked to deny it.

Exxon scientists did make the predictions and that information is now out in the public domain.

It is up to you now mhaze (as you have made the claim) to indicate which Exxon evaluated documentation shows otherwise.