Environ. Res. Lett. 12 (2017) 084019 Table 5. Example quotations (coding units) expressing doubt that AGW is solvable. For each document category, two examples are given: the first typifies a relatively ‘strong’ quotation, the second a relatively ‘mild’ one. Substantiating quotations for all documents are provided in section S7, supplementary information. Doubt AGW is solvable (SP1) 1989 [131] 1982 [83] ‘Some key perceptions/misconceptions . . . Nuclear and/or renewable energy resources can solve the problem.’ ‘Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world’s economies and societies.’ PEER-REVIEWED 2002 [108] 2001 [132] ‘Even as evidence for global warming accumulates, the dependence of civilization on the oxidation of coal, oil, and gas for energy makes an appropriate response difficult.’ ‘Even for the higher stabilization levels considered, the developing world would not be able to use fossil fuels for their development in the manner that the developed world has used them.’ 1998 [118] ‘To get to the [Kyoto] target, we would have to stop all driving in the US or close all electric power plants or shut down every industry. Obviously, these are not realistic options . . . meeting the Kyoto target would clearly have a huge economic impact.’ ‘Independent economists project that to get the targeted reductions in fossil-fuel use, price increases like these would be required: 40 percent for gasoline, 50 percent for home heating oil, 25 percent for electricity and 50 percent for natural gas. These and other price hikes could cost the average American family of four about $2,700 a year. At least some developed countries would probably have to impose significantly higher fossil fuel taxes, rationing or both.’ ‘[E]missions will continue to grow to meet the demands of society for prosperity and to meet basic needs . . . Countries like India, China and Indonesia are going to rely on domestic coal to meet growing needs . . . and their emissions are going to grow rapidly . . . [F]ossil fuels will remain the dominant source of energy supply over this period and beyond. Even with rapid year-to-year growth, intermittent renewable energy from wind and solar will remain a small contributor to global energy needs.’ INTERNAL NON-PEERREVIEWED 2005 [133] ADVERTORIALS 1997 [92] 2002 [134] ‘What is not moderate is the call [by the US government and other countries in the run up to UN Kyoto negotiations] to lower emissions to 1990 levels. A cutback of that size would inflict considerable economic pain . . . Committing to binding targets and timetables now will alter today’s lifestyles and tomorrow’s living standards. Flexibility will be constrained. Carpooling in; sport utility vehicles out. High fuel and electric bills. Factory closures. Job displacement. And could businesses and consumers cut their energy consumption by 30 percent without some form of tax or carbon rationing? Probably not.’ ‘On an overall basis, many of today’s suggested alternative energy approaches are not as energy efficient, environmentally beneficial or economic as competing fossil fuels. They are often sustained only through special advantages and government subsidies. This is not a desirable basis for public policy or the provision of energy.’ CO2 emissions,’ and ‘carbon budgets . . . for CO2 stabilization’ and/or climate mitigation [81, 127]. Five of these ExxonMobil studies–one internal, three peerreviewed, and one non-peer-reviewed–include data (see, for example, https://perma.cc/EJ5A-EAZ7) that indicate 2015–2100 CO2 budgets consistent with limiting warming to 2 °C and/or stabilizing CO2 concentrations below 550 ppm in the range of 251–716 GtC [81, 83, 127–129]. These budgets are within a factor of two of contemporary estimates of roughly 442–651 GtC [130] (see caption, table 6). 4. Discussion The question we have addressed in this study is not whether ExxonMobil ‘suppressed climate change research,’ ‘withheld it,’ or ‘sought to hide’ it, which is how ExxonMobil has glossed the allegations against it [11, 12, 135]. This is also how the allegations have occasionally been presented in the press [136]. Our assessment of ExxonMobil’s peer-reviewed publica12 tions and the role of its scientists supports the conclusion that the company did not ‘suppress’ climate science—indeed, it contributed to it. However, on the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did. This conclusion is based on three factors: discrepancies in AGW communications between document categories; imbalance in impact of different document categories; and factual mispresentations in some advertorials. First, we have shown that there is a discrepancy between what different document categories say, and particularly what they emphasize, about AGW as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. This discrepancy grows with the public accessibility of documents, and is greatest between advertorials and the other documents. Second, in public, ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it. ExxonMobil’s peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications have been cited an average (median (mean)) of 21(60) and 2(9) times, respectively,