5 ExxonMobil said about climate change in private and academic circles, and what it said to the public. In other words, ExxonMobil didn’t just know about climate science and its implications decades ago (the main finding of journalists), it publicly undermined public awareness and understanding of that knowledge. The word “systematic” is key here. ExxonMobil has accused journalists of using “deliberately cherry-picked statements,” but when we analyze all relevant documents – including those that ExxonMobil claimed would exonerate them – with an independent, established social science method, we observe clear trends [5]. Our observations affirm the conclusions drawn by journalists in their investigative reporting. Q7: Was the study peer-reviewed? If so, could you please describe the peerreview process that took place? A7: Yes, our study was peer-reviewed. The study underwent peer-review at the journal Environmental Research Letters. For details on the peer-review process, please enquire with the journal. As far as I am aware, our paper was reviewed by the same process used by that journal for any submission: First, our submitted manuscript underwent preliminary assessment for suitability by the journal’s Editorial Board and Editorial office. Then, it was sent to independent, anonymous referees for formal review. Our manuscript underwent two rounds of revisions based on critical reviews from three referees. The review process lasted roughly three-and-a-half months, from initial manuscript submission to acceptance for publication. Q8: Could you please describe the study’s methodologies to assess ExxonMobil’s communications? A8: For details on our study’s methodologies, please consult our article’s Method section and supplementary information. We adapt and combine the methodologies used to quantify the consensus on human-caused climate change by Oreskes [6] and Cook et al. [7] with the content analysis methodologies used to characterize media communications about climate change by Feldman et al. and Elsasser and Dunlap [8,9]. We applied content analysis to 187 ExxonMobil (previously Exxon Corporation and Mobil Oil Corporation) documents generated between 1977 and 2014. These comprised all relevant, publicly available internal company files that have led to allegations against ExxonMobil, as well as all peerreviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications publicly offered by the company in response. We also analyzed 36 of the company’s so-called ‘advertorials’ about climate change – paid, editorial-style advertisements on the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times between 1989 and 2004 – as representative of the company’s public communications. To characterize each document, we read its abstract, introduction, and conclusion, and either skimmed or read thoroughly the rest as necessary. In the case of long documents (over ∼30 pages) in which executive summaries