It's now 2025. Amid escalating climate disasters and unprecedented temperature anomalies in recent years, how should we assess the claim that 'global warming is a hoax'?

This systematic campaign not only mobilized numerous so-called scientists to raise doubts about climate change—citing various purported 'facts' and 'evidence'—but also enlisted corporate actors, especially the petrochemical industry, to distribute leaflets at scientific conferences and publish opinion pieces in news media denying climate change, claiming it is fake. For instance, in 1996, Exxon distributed promotional materials at an event highlighting the 'uncertainty' surrounding climate change. In 2000, ExxonMobil placed an advertisement in The New York Times titled 'Unsettled Science', drawing attention to the supposed scientific uncertainty of climate change. While companies routinely advertise their products, it is virtually unprecedented for a corporation to run advertisements explicitly challenging established science—yet ExxonMobil did exactly that, using mainstream media to propagate doubt about climate change. A series of investigative reports published by Inside Climate News was a finalist for the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Readers may be aware that the Pulitzer Prize holds exceptional prestige in journalism and creative fields—often dubbed the 'Nobel Prize of Journalism'. Historically, landmark investigations into the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War, the 9/11 attacks, the 2003 Iraq War, and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have all received Pulitzer Prizes. This underscores the high regard for Inside Climate News’ reporting in terms of impact, depth, and public value. In this extensive investigation, journalists interviewed dozens of former Exxon employees—including scientists and engineers—and unearthed voluminous internal documents, research reports, and meeting records from libraries, archives, and even the homes and offices of former Exxon executives. A wealth of evidence shows that Exxon’s own scientists had already developed a clear understanding of climate change as early as the late 1970s. Their research team issued warnings that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels would cause global warming—and could profoundly affect both Earth and humanity. For example, in July 1977, James F. Black, a senior scientist in Exxon’s (then ESSO’s) Research & Engineering Division, delivered a presentation on the greenhouse effect to Exxon’s Management Committee. In his talk, Black emphasized the impact of human fossil fuel combustion on global climate and predicted the potential temperature rise associated with doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. He noted that atmospheric CO₂ levels had already risen by approximately 10–15%, estimating that fossil fuel combustion was the primary source. At the conclusion of his presentation, Black advised the company to make strategic energy decisions within five to ten years to confront the challenges posed by the greenhouse effect—indicating that humanity still had a narrow five-to-ten-year window to act. Black later compiled this presentation into a formal 34-page report submitted to senior management. Yet despite possessing far earlier and more accurate knowledge of global warming—and its likely trajectory—than the general public, these petrochemical and fossil fuel companies did not pivot toward new energy or high-tech sectors. Instead, they doubled down on fossil fuels and engaged in extensive, misleading public communications regarding the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.

Oil giants abandon carbon neutrality, while capital rushes to buy Chinese new-energy stocks.

→ This is Original Article #1930 by Global Zero Carbon Not long ago, 'net-zero emissions' was the global buzzword. Nearly 145 countries announced—or were considering—carbon neutrality targets in recent years, collectively covering close to 90% of global emissions. Global oil majors stood at the forefront, loudly proclaiming their responsibility to achieve carbon neutrality. Consider this: if these corporations were treated as a single nation, their emissions would dwarf those of any individual country. Yet today, this wave is receding—and the very same oil majors are leading the retreat. Meanwhile, capital is pouring into Chinese new-energy stocks. 01 Without fossil fuels, can humanity survive? Clean Creatives recently released a new report analyzing over 1,800 advertisements, public statements, and promotional materials issued by major global energy companies between 2020 and 2024. It found that their messaging has shifted dramatically—from advocating climate action and clean energy to framing fossil fuels as indispensable for modern life and national security. The fastest U-turn came from BP. In 2020, the company boldly pledged to cut production by 40% by 2030—but when oil prices surged, BP slashed that target to just 25% in 2023. Last year, it further reduced its annual renewable energy investment from over $5 billion to $1.5–2 billion, while boosting oil-and-gas investments to $10 billion. BP has even hinted it might abandon its renewable energy goals altogether, citing failure to meet its base profit target of $40.9 billion in 2024. Shell followed suit, scrapping its original plan to phase out production by 2030 and quietly withdrawing its financial commitments to carbon capture and offset projects. ExxonMobil announced it will slash spending on low-carbon initiatives to $20 billion over the next five years—down one-third from its prior $30 billion plan—and has suspended its low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia integrated project at its Baytown refinery in Texas. Dubbed one of the world’s largest low-carbon hydrogen projects, it was designed to produce 1 billion cubic feet of low-carbon hydrogen per day—with 98% CO₂ capture—and over 1 million tons of low-carbon ammonia annually. French energy giant TotalEnergies went furthest: on March 26, it declared outright that the world cannot achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 as envisioned under the Paris Agreement—and therefore the company must revise its own climate targets. Researchers note that although the rhetoric varies slightly, all these firms have followed a similar trajectory—shifting from 'fossil fuels are part of the solution' to 'without fossil fuels (us), humanity cannot survive.' Clearly, the world’s largest fossil fuel companies have entered a new phase of 'climate disinformation'—using it to justify continued expansion of oil and gas operations. 02 Fossil fuels are unreliable; clean energy is essential! Now, following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East and subsequent energy price hikes, oil majors have reaped an unexpected windfall. Analysts point out that Chevron’s fourth-quarter output averaged 4 million barrels per day, with Brent crude averaging $64 per barrel.

ExxonMobil Warns of Worsening Global Warming Amid Persistent Coal Use

4 days ago

ExxonMobil's annual Energy Outlook warns that persistent coal use will drive CO2 emissions to three times necessary levels by 2050, hindering climate goals. The report notes slowed adoption of carbon capture technologies despite rising global electricity demand.

bloomberg

2025-11-18

ExxonMobil to Close UK Cracker

2026-01-30

ExxonMobil chemical earnings slide amid shrinking margins

2026-02-10

ExxonMobil Shuts Down Scottish Cracker Unit Early

2026-03-09

ExxonMobil Exports US Gasoline to Australia for First Time

2026-04-16

Exxon withdraws offer to sell two initial Golden Pass LNG cargoes, sources say