> research that Exxon funded that didn't just confirm what climate scientists were saying but used more than a dozen different computer models that forecast the coming warming with precision equal to or better than government and academic scientists
I didn't read the paper in question, but I think (just from this description) that this is a bit disingenuous. Exxon is no angel, but big companies fund thousands of researchers on thousands of grants, and I don't expect management to pay attention to everything that that comes out of that with equal priority.
Maybe there's some wishful thinking going on in management, some malfeasance, but "a study they funded shows they're doing bad things" is not something that surprising; thousands of studies come out every day alleging some wrongdoing by somebody or another, and we don't find out what's signal and what's noise until much later.
I didn't read the paper in question, but I think (just from this description) that this is a bit disingenuous. Exxon is no angel, but big companies fund thousands of researchers on thousands of grants, and I don't expect management to pay attention to everything that that comes out of that with equal priority.
Maybe there's some wishful thinking going on in management, some malfeasance, but "a study they funded shows they're doing bad things" is not something that surprising; thousands of studies come out every day alleging some wrongdoing by somebody or another, and we don't find out what's signal and what's noise until much later.