9 Finding: We found that from as early as the 1970s, ExxonMobil not only knew about emerging climate science, but also contributed research to it. Examples: • Internal documents show that by the early 1980s, ExxonMobil scientists and managers were sufficiently informed about climate science and its prevailing uncertainties to identify global warming as a potential threat to its business interests. This awareness apparently came from a combination of prior research and expert advice. For example, in 1979 and 1980, university researcher Andrew Callegari co-authored two peer-reviewed articles acknowledging that “the climatic implications of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions have been recognized for some time” [15,16]. The authors articulated the “climatically huge” temperature increases and ecological impacts that would result “if a significant fraction of the fossil fuel reserve is burned.” In 1980, Callegari joined Exxon, and the next year took over its CO2 research efforts. His papers were frequently cited in company publications. • From approximately 1979 to 1982, the Exxon Research and Engineering (ER&E) Company pursued three major climate change research projects. ExxonMobil’s 2015 statement that two of the projects “had nothing to do with CO2 emissions” is contradicted by internal documents [17]. In the early 1980s, these major research initiatives were discontinued amidst budget cuts. In 1984, ER&E characterized its approaches: “Establish a scientific presence through research program in climate modeling; selective support of outside activities; maintain awareness of new scientific developments” [18]. Finding: 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. 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. Examples: Before providing examples, I note that individual exemplifying quotations cannot fully reflect the spectrum of positions expressed by the documents. The reader is directed to tables 3-5 and the supplementary information of Supran and Oreskes (2017) for a more comprehensive set of examples. That said, as we have previously described, the discrepancies in ExxonMobil’s climate change communications are systematic. ExxonMobil has accused journalists of using “deliberately cherry-picked statements,” but when we analyze all relevant documents (and the full spectrum of positions expressed therein), we observe clear trends [5]. Below, I therefore provide examples substantiating these trends. On climate change as real and human-caused, characteristic examples in ExxonMobil’s peer-reviewed publications include: • A chapter of a 1985 US Department of Energy report co-authored by Exxon scientist Brian Flannery, which modeled future temperatures for different CO2 forcing scenarios (figure 5.16 of [19]), showing a range of 1.5-6 °C warming by 2100. “The foregoing results, with all their caveats,” the report summarizes,