ExxonMobil: 'The science is uncertain' — while internal scientists confirmed warming

Made 2000-01-01 00:00:00+00 · Audience · General public
The promise
“Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.”
Inside Climate News investigation, 16 September 2015 ↗

For decades ExxonMobil publicly cast doubt on climate science. Internal documents and an independent peer-reviewed analysis later showed the company's own scientists had accurately projected human-caused warming as early as the 1970s, while its public communications cast that same science as uncertain.

What actually happened (2 sourced violations)
  1. #1 2023-01-13 00:00:00+00 8,413 days later primary evidence
    Exxon's internal scientific projections from 1977 to 2003 are shown in Science to have been highly accurate predictions of warming — contradicting decades of public-facing doubt.
    Science, Supran et al., 13 January 2023 ↗
  2. #2 2022-05-24 00:00:00+00 8,179 days later primary evidence
    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allows the state's consumer-protection lawsuit against ExxonMobil for misleading the public about climate to proceed.
    Reuters, 24 May 2022 ↗
Followup — no correction on record
165 days tracked without correction

As of 2026-10-15, the entity has issued no public correction, retraction, or course-change. The platform has tracked this promise continuously since 2026-05-03.

Every claim on this page links to a primary source. Found a missing source, a misquote, or a fulfilled commitment? File a correction.
⌗ Cite this
Permalinkhttps://www.goblinhouse.net/lies/exxon-climate-uncertain-1990s
CitationGoblin House. "ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil: 'The science is uncertain' — while internal scientists confirmed warming" (documented promise). Goblin House — The Architecture of Secrecy. Accessed October 15, 2026. https://www.goblinhouse.net/lies/exxon-climate-uncertain-1990s.

Sourced from public records and content-hashed; verify via /attestation, standard at /methodology.

PROVE IT How verification works →