The Fallacy of ‘Exxon Knew” (Part II)
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 24, 2025Yesterday’s post, “‘Exxon Knew’ as Historical Fallacy“, provided historical context to weaken the claim that an internal Exxon study was demonstrative as to the future dangers of CO2-led global warming. Today’s post evaluates the rudimentary finding that (third bullet of the Exxon memo):
The present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic envrionmental effects before the year 2050.
Nine years after the internal Exxon memo (1979), reporting on the James Hansen testimony that launched the climate debate, environmental reporter Philip Shabecoff provided specific forecasts of anthropogenic activity: 3–9°F and 1–4 feet by 2025–2050.
… Continue ReadingMathematical models have predicted for some years now that a buildup of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other gases emitted by human activities into the atmosphere would cause the earth’s surface to warm….
“Exxon Knew” as Historical Fallacy (Part I)
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 23, 2025The following memorandum within the vast bowels of Exxon Corporation from 1979 has led to several fallacies that the memo represented company policy and was definitive at the time.
False and false. This memo from certain employees never made it to a company position for cause. Global cooling was the bigger concern back then, and the above memo did not investigate the SO2 offset, much less the benefits from CO2 fertilization and incremental warming. Peak Oil and Peak Gas was the intellectual/practical concern of this era.
Background Posts
MasterResource has opined on this subject is a series of posts, summarized here.
- A rebuttal to an op-ed by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, “The Forgotten Oil Ads that Told Us Climate Change was Nothing.”
- A critical review of Inside Climate News’s “Exxon: The Road Not Taken” (here and here)
- A three-part rejoinder of Big Oil vs The World by the BBC (Episode I; Episode II; Episode III)
- A rejoinder to Shell Knew (here)
- ‘ExxonKnew’: More Correction (Sept.
Comments: DOE Climate Science Study
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 22, 2025Ed. Note: These comments were prepared in support of the U.S. Department of Energy study, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” For legal reasons, the DOE has disbanded the effort, inviting the authors to respond to criticisms on their own time. The comments below are for the record.
The new DOE report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate (July 29, 2025) is a welcome rebuttal to “the cause” (a Climategate term) of climate alarm and policy activism. Its optimistic view of CO2 enrichment and climate change should be welcomed by all interested in the subject.
This comment highlights quotations from climate scientists who are not associated with the “skeptic” or “realist” school of climate science (such as the 2025 Climate Working Group), but who nonetheless rightly understand energy as the master resource and the uncertainties of climate modeling.…
Continue Reading