8 (b) We found that there is a discrepancy between what different ExxonMobil document categories say, and particularly what they emphasize, about climate change science and its implications. i. On climate change as real and human-caused, serious, and solvable, we observed that the more publicly accessible documents were, the more they tended to communicate doubt. That is, available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public. This discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For example, accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. ii. On the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets, we found this topic discussed and sometimes quantified in 24 documents of various types, but absent from advertorials. (c) We found an imbalance in impact of different document categories: ExxonMobil contributed to and acknowledged climate science in private and in academic journals read only by a small number of academics; whereas ExxonMobil promoted doubt about that science in advertorials in The New York Times read by millions of people. (d) We found ExxonMobil’s advertorials (and other more public communications) to include several instances of explicit factual misrepresentation. Based on these findings, our key conclusion is that ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about the state of climate science and its implications. The company contributed to advancing climate science – by way of its private research and its scientists’ academic publications – but promoted doubt about it in advertorials and other direct and indirect public communications. This overwhelming emphasis on uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own, is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al. term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM) – a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [13,14]. We are not in a position to judge whether ExxonMobil violated any laws. Q13: Can you please elaborate on these findings and conclusions by specifically giving examples? A13: Below I provide examples pertaining to the findings outlined in A12: