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.

Smoke and mirrors. This is representative of Exxon’s general strategy. There is a partial admission of the dangers of climate warming, followed by an absolute refusal to change trajectory. This has not changed, and as long as capital depends on it, it never will.

The headline is not necessarily misleading. It paints an incomplete picture, though. These paragraphs in the article are more relevant (to me) than Exxon’s immaterial admissions concerning climate change:

ExxonMobil’s Energy Outlook typically shows strong demand for oil and natural gas for decades into the future even as the world attempts to reduce emissions.

“We are seeing clear signs that coal is sticking longer from an energy security and other perspectives, specifically in parts of Asia-Pacific, China, and others,” Joshi said.

In Exxon’s Global Executive Summary, mentioned in the article, coal use is predicted to decrease by 30% by 2050 to be replaced by renewables and natural gas. This is, at best, replacing fossil fuels with fossil fuels.

The mention of including fewer emission-reduction technologies and fewer CCS projections was also interesting:

Other changes in ExxonMobil’s outlook include fewer emission-reduction technologies. Projections for carbon capture and storage, and use of low-carbon hydrogen, dropped by about one-third from last year.

It makes me believe there is no more budget for putting on an overshoot-and-return charade to justify our reliance on fossil fuels. None of this is surprising or remarkable, though. This is not the downfall of Exxon, as the headline might have you believe, this is still business as usual.

Have you found it to be reliable? Online discussions around e-mail servers point to potential deliverability issues, so I was wondering about your experience with it.

Have a home server, and I’ve been considering self-hosting my e-mail. At least as an experiment, if it turns out to be inconsistent.

What those don’t address is quantity per category. There’s way more cars than motorbikes on the roads (in Switzerland and most EU/North America areas).

This is an important factor. Most of the comments seem to be fixating on motorbikes as one of the biggest sources of noise pollution based on sound intensity. I understand this, but it doesn’t speak to my experience.

From my apartment I can rarely hear a motorbike, while the car noise is near-constant. I sometimes close my windows during the day specifically because of this. I find it overstimulating not due to its intensity, but due to the unending nature of it. ‘That basic rumble you can never escape’ is a good way to put it.

So, for someone in the same situation (which would be most people living in a city) removing noise caused by cars would lead to a much more significant quality-of-life improvement compared to removing its motorbike counterpart. Even if motorbikes are louder.