So what, exactly, is the claim here?

Exxon employed climate scientists who reached conclusions about near-term future warming that other climate scientists also reached? Well so what?

According to the latest claims Exxon scientists determined that warming might be 0.2c ± 0.04°C per decade. Well that was wildly incorrect. Wildly incorrect.

So to salvage the campaign, what is claimed? That even though the predictions were off with the fairies, they were within 63% of what other climate scientists incorrectly predicted? Huh? So what?

Large numbers of climate scientists at the time, and even now, predicted an increase in temperatures. So did the Exxon employed scientists. Hardly surprising.

But nowhere is it claimed that those same Exxon scientists raised alarm bells.

Its all a storm in a tea-cup stirred up by the well-funded anti-oil crowd. It failed in 2012. It failed in 2019. I'll leave you to draw the likely outcome on 2023.

WTF?

Mhaze asks: “So what, exactly, is the claim here?”

Well this thread is 9 pages long now and the claim has not changed.

As I pointed out to diver dan who also missed the point:
 
"...whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world."

The misinformation about anthological climate change has been pushed by the major players for 40 -50 years and this false narrative is accepted by many people.

This false narrative is pushed by some very regular commentators on this forum.

They seem to get upset when factual information is presented to them or just deny the information even exists.

It, mhaze, you do not have a problem with this then for you there is no point.

WTF?

Mhaze in one of your posts you say “They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions.”

So here you are saying that the ExxonMobile scientists did not even make the predictions that are the basis for this whole thread.

In another post you say “Large numbers of climate scientists at the time, and even now, predicted an increase in temperatures. So did the Exxon employed scientists. “

So when you think it supports your argument there were no Exxon predictions and when you think it supports your arguments there were Exxon predictions.

WTF?

I made the same mistake with my cut and paste job of my previous post.

It should read "This misinformation about anthropological climate ..

I couldn't find it earlier but here's the findings of the court around this ExxonKnew bs.

http://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/452044-2018-Op-12.10.19.pdf

After being presented with "reams of proprietary information" and "scores of proprietary internal models" from Exxon, the court found that Exxon had done nothing wrong in regards to its past, present or future climate risks disclosures.

The we're-all-gunna-die crowd would prefer that wasn't true, therefore this will be ignored.

People like WTF? just assume that Exxon et al are behind so-called (incorrectly called) denialism via clandestine funding. The evidence for that is woefully thin and much of it flows back to the afore-mentioned Oreskes, but they believe it nonetheless. So when it is shown that Exxon knew as much or as little as everyone else, they cry foul.

Its a just more gumph to keep the dangerous warming train moving forward. Those who fell for previous rubbish will fall for this rubbish - t'was always this.

But its all smoke and mirrors.

In the same vein, we see a story about SR's secret crush, Greta Thunberg being arrested in most dramatic terms during a protest over some of the stuff Germans are using to stay warm. The cameras and the press and the we're-all-gunna-die crowd loved it. But then we see the behind the scenes story and find it is all done for the publicity. But the anxiously gullible will remain anxiously gullible.

http://twitter.com/i/status/1615471704423424000

WTF?

mhaze you contradict yourself in consecutive posts.

Then there is deflection.

Who is “The we're-all-gunna-die crowd” that you are talking about – maybe direct comments to them because this is not what this thread is about. Maybe start your own thread?

You mention something about Greta Thunberg. She is not mentioned in any of the Exxon material so including her in this is yet another deflection.

Even more intentional distraction from mhaze: the link he provides to a litigation site and produces this gem:

“Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve ExxonMobile for responsibility for contributing to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases in the production of its fossil fuel products.

ExxonMobile does not dispute either that its operations produce green gases or that greenhouse gases produce climate change.”

This relates to a fraud case bought by investors.

The science and ExxonMobile’s knowledge of it are not in question.

mhaze you condradict yourself in consecutive posts.

You try to deflect from the topic by providing unsupported nonsense.

When you do provide a link rather than support your point of view (difficult because you hold two contradictory points of view to be true at the same time) it in fact backs up exactly what this post is all about: Exxon accurately predicted global warming from 1970s.