The Other “They Knew” Climate Story: #ExxonKnew vs. #TheyKnew

While everyone was chanting #ExxonKnew, another “they knew” story was unfolding in plain sight. For more than a decade, we've been inundated with a carefully crafted public relations campaign built around a simple slogan: #ExxonKnew. The accusation is familiar. Exxon supposedly understood the risks of anthropogenic climate change decades ago, concealed what it knew, and therefore bears responsibility for today's climate damages. That slogan has become the centerpiece of lawsuits, congressional h...

This post is currently for paid subscribers only, all membership types.

If you are a paid subscriber and can't view it, make sure to log in.

After 30 days it will be available to all users.

You can bookmark it and read in 30 days or

To read it it now, you can sign up by clicking here.

37 Comments

Ned Komar

July 1, 2026 10:30 am

The bullet point: “That wasn’t coming from skeptics. It was coming from respected climate scientists.”, implies that skeptics aren’t respected. Replace the word “respected” with “main stream”. Problem solved.

Pat Frank

Reply to Ned Komar

July 1, 2026 5:39 pm

They’re not scientists, either.

pflashgordon

July 1, 2026 11:05 am

It is time to start filing #ClimateScienceKnew lawsuits against universities and university researchers, climate activist NGOs, philanthropies who funded the Climate, public schools and teachers unions who knowingly distorted curriculum and caused immeasurable harm to children, the renewable energy industry that is a leech on the climate scare, #ExxonKnew plaintiffs, politicians speaking outside of their official capacity, and various arms of the mainstream news media, especially those who organized Climate communications departments. The list could go on.

The US alone has needlessly wasted well over $1 trillion since 2010 on EV mandates, forced construction of wind and solar generation along with transmission and battery backup systems, and biofuels. Billions in federal research dollars went to climate change effects researchers who blindly used the 8.5 scenario. The fossil fuel electric power industries were forced to allocate billions of dollars on fruitless alternate energy schemes and carbon capture nonsense. None of it was necessary, nor is it of any practical or redeeming value.

Who will take the lead? Among other things, I envision class action lawsuits for damages, and new media blitzes against the perpetrators of this colossal climate emergency hoax.

oeman50

Reply to pflashgordon

July 2, 2026 7:10 am

To your point, only Exxon is responsible for the climate?

I would submit that whether or not any individual company knew or not, the outcome is the same, which makes the point moot. The world needs and uses hydrocarbons for fuel and other products.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

Reply to pflashgordon

July 2, 2026 11:01 am

There is a problem. Was RCP8.5 implausible (maybe even impossible) from the day it was developed, or is it only now determined to be implausible because of the great advances made in fighting Climate Change, as many CC proponents have stated? The Keeling curve says that there have been no advances.

Sparta Nova 4

July 1, 2026 11:30 am

I read the Exxon research report and it is not what the alarmists are saying

Ruhaan Pilani

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

July 1, 2026 12:17 pm

how many of you guys really believe this is the most visited place on the internet?

-27

Derg

Reply to Ruhaan Pilani

July 1, 2026 12:55 pm

What does the report say?

Scissor

Reply to Ruhaan Pilani

July 1, 2026 1:22 pm

Are you trying to lie or do you just have problems with reading comprehension?

philincalifornia

Reply to Ruhaan Pilani

July 1, 2026 1:29 pm

Zero is my guess

MarkW

Reply to Ruhaan Pilani

July 1, 2026 1:53 pm

Typical climate alarmist, can’t win on the facts, so uses a lie to change the subject.
Nobody ever said this site was the most visited place on the internet.
I’d ask you if felt shame or regret, but we both know you don’t.

bnice2000

Reply to Ruhaan Pilani

July 1, 2026 1:59 pm

You are here, aren’t you…. and regularly making mockery of yourself.

leefor

Reply to Ruhaan Pilani

July 1, 2026 8:04 pm

Perhaps you can look at this, read and comprehend.

https://energi.media/news/exxon-models-predicting-climate-change-were-spot-on-40-years-ago/

Note it say many models not all models. Obviously no consensus.

Harold Pierce

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

July 1, 2026 2:08 pm

Post a brief summary of the report and a link to the report.

Pat Frank

Reply to Harold Pierce

July 1, 2026 5:46 pm

What I Learned about What Exxon Knew

2023 Addendum to What Did Exxon Know?

Links in the citations.

Laws of Nature

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

July 1, 2026 2:09 pm

It can’t be, there is still a lot of uncertainty in current models and the models from back then were flat out wrong.

I am not trying to bash current or past scientists, they are essential to drive the science forward, but it is a simple truth that we are not there yet and certainly the older models are not capable to predict weather, extreme weather, global warming or climate changes with the required precision. Any expert knows that independent of their climate believe!

As a recent example consider
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104990
“””Warm Clouds Biases in CMIP6 Models Linked to Indirect Effects of Falling Ice-Radiation Interactions Over the Tropical and Subtropical Pacific”””

If this bias is not properly addressed in recent cmip6 models, Exxon researcher 4 decades ago did not address it either.
Their results were biased, they did not know (and this is just one of thousands of improvements to the models physics, there are many more flaws including artifacts from insufficient model resolution)
That whole Exxon knew story is completely baffling only, because it shows a basic lack of knowledge of the accusers! (Or they actually know and test the public.. )

Pat Frank

Reply to Laws of Nature

July 1, 2026 5:49 pm

From 2019: Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Climate models right up through CMIP6 have no predictive value.

Pat Frank

Reply to Sparta Nova 4

July 1, 2026 5:42 pm

I’ve read them, too. Exxon and its scientists behaved ethically throughout.

And they were candid about the unreliability of climate models, and thus the unreliability of the projections.

The whole of #ExxonKnew is manufactured from whole-cloth villainy.

Curious George

July 1, 2026 11:34 am

What did Al Gore know?

Scissor

Reply to Curious George

July 1, 2026 12:13 pm

Not much, but he’s full of misconceptions and other stuff.

bnice2000

Reply to Curious George

July 1, 2026 1:55 pm

Everything he thought he knew was basically WRONG. !

And he still is.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

Reply to bnice2000

July 2, 2026 11:11 am

But what does he know now – has he corrected his understanding of Climate based on his predictions failing?

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to Curious George

July 1, 2026 7:12 pm

He just announced that every single one of the issues he raised were totally authenticated, completely correct.
This is the face of 100% failure of predictions!

MarkW

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

July 1, 2026 7:22 pm

Up until the end, Ehrlich still defended his predictions. Even the ones that failed nearly 50 years ago.

oeman50

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

July 2, 2026 7:13 am

Such is the voice of unrepentant BS.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

July 2, 2026 11:12 am

Answers my question – thanks.

David Dibbell

July 1, 2026 11:37 am

It’s good to expose the background of RCP8.5 and its misuse. But in so doing, let’s not give any unearned credit to modeled scenarios of more moderate emissions pathways. Do those time-step-iterated, parameter-tuned-to-hindcast simulations tell us anything of value about the future climate, as related to emissions of CO2? No.

I hold that #NASA_Knew better than to use the language of crisis or danger, as elements of a web article published January 14, 2009 provide fundamental descriptions of climate system response to absorbed solar energy. Those responses imply a strong self-regulating characteristic. Was there ever a good physical reason for alarm? No.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/

One more thing. Even today does anyone “KNOW” that incremental CO2 is even capable of OPERATING as a climate “forcing” to which amplifying “feedbacks” must be expected to arise? No. This is demonstrated here using the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing

ERA40 was available in the early 2000’s with this same hourly parameter for assessing the order of magnitude of the computed increase in IR absorbing power from rising concentrations of CO2. That “forcing” is vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation, which operates throughout the depth of the troposphere. Spectral signatures do not suffice to confirm an exertion of a perceptible influence on the massive atmosphere which operates as the compressible fluid of its own circulation between the surface and space.

A more complete explanation about energy conversion, with references, plots, and a time-lapse video is shared here.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link

There. Thank you for listening.

bnice2000

Reply to David Dibbell

July 1, 2026 1:57 pm

Any “scenario” that is based on atmospheric CO2, is a junk scenario… period !

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to David Dibbell

July 1, 2026 7:16 pm

Every IPCC model contains carbon dioxide as a controller.
That means it is impossible for any one of them to get any result other that one which seems to agree with the issue they are supposed to be testing.
It is not science. Models are not science, modelling is a tool and a very blunt instrument at that. As always with IT, garbage in -> garbage out.

MarkW

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

July 1, 2026 7:24 pm

Heck with the Known Unknowns, we are still drowning in the Unknown Unknowns.

Capt Jeff

July 1, 2026 12:13 pm

What we need is an executive order that requires government agencies to purge studies and reports that are based on RCP8.5, including the Fifth National Climate Assessment.
Education materials based on RCP8.5 also must be purged within a year.

Cam_S

July 1, 2026 12:42 pm

Still wondering…
When will studies that used the IPCC RCP8.5 scenario be retracted?

MarkW

Reply to Cam_S

July 1, 2026 7:24 pm

Somewhere between never and the end of time.

D Reid

July 1, 2026 3:42 pm

The “ExxonKnew” story has always bothered me with the incredible hypocrisy coming from the alarmist camp. I’ll preface this by saying I’m not currently a paid subscriber, (times are tough, I’ll give my support when I’m not having finance stress dreams) so I don’t know if this is brought up in the article, but shouldn’t whatever “Exxon Knew” or did not know mean absolutely nothing? I mean these are reports being generated by scientists being paid by BIG OIL. I thought we couldn’t trust anything being said or written by those making oil money? Why does “the science” only hold weight when it fits the narrative? I mean, I know, its easy, gotta sell the story somehow, but gosh it really gets me ticked (I don’t know how the site feels about swearing, best to keep it clean).

Even when I was in my full alarmist stage, full on climate panic, sleepless night, questioning my existence and why I should persist, “ExxonKnew” still didn’t sit right. I mean the alarmists they had me hook, line, and sinker, and the lack of logic behind “ExxonKnew” really annoyed me. You cannot deny science based on who signs a cheque and then turn around and say “but these specific oil money guys are cool actually.”

John in Oz

Reply to D Reid

July 1, 2026 8:08 pm

Even if ExxonKnew then so did everyone else that had access to ‘the science’.

Politicians also knew as they have a swathe of public servants and departments that are advising them on current knowledge and events.

Bob

July 1, 2026 5:14 pm

That is not all they know, they know additional CO2 into the atmosphere can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming. I have no respect for liars.

Redge

July 1, 2026 10:10 pm

A couple of quotes from private emails between “scientists” and a mere layman:

Thank you for your question.
RCP8.5 was chosen as it gives a high signal to noise ratio – and so allows us to extract the climate change signal above natural climate variability.
We can then use this to estimate the change per degree of warming, which can be applied to other emissions scenarios.
We appreciate RCP8.5 is a high end scenario, with lower emissions scenarios now considered more likely – however understanding plausible high end changes are needed for some users to support precautionary planning.

———————–

The RCP8.5 scenario has come under criticism from some scientists for assuming too much expansion of coal use in the future. Here is an article from Carbon Brief that provides an overview of the RCP8.5 scenario and includes links to the original peer-reviewed studies about the RCPs.
When RCP8.5 was developed, it was intended to represent a high emission scenario. Although RCP8.5 is often colloquially referred to as “business-as-usual,” this scenario was not intended to be considered the expected or more likely outcome in a future without climate policy. As discussed in the original overview paper about the RCPs (see van Vuuren et al., 2011), the RCPs may be used to identify the range of climate impacts associated with different levels of anthropogenic forcing but should not be interpreted as forecasts or predictions.

#ScientistsKnew

wpDiscuz

Related Posts

It’s Summer Again, So Media Tees-Up Another Round of ‘Heat Dome’ Mania

“Super” El Niño is a No-Go: In More Ways than One

The Oxford Institute Letting Climate Ideology Bias its Research

Four Million Sinking Homes