Yes, that Exxon

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

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

        • antheraeavx@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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.

        • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day 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.

              • Gladaed@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                16 hours 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  16 hours 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    15 hours 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 ^^