Oil companies knew about climate change since the 1970s and hid the evidence.

Context#

This claim became a rallying cry for climate activists and trial lawyers seeking to hold oil companies liable for climate change. It relies on selectively quoted internal documents to create a narrative of corporate conspiracy.

Evidence#

What Actually Happened

• Oil companies funded legitimate climate research in the 1970s-80s
• Exxon scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals—the opposite of "hiding"
• This research contributed to the broader scientific understanding
• The same information was available to governments, universities, and the public

The "Hiding" Myth

• No evidence was concealed—research was published openly
• Climate science in the 1970s-80s had significant uncertainty (including predictions of global cooling)
• Companies appropriately communicated that uncertainty to shareholders
• Emphasizing uncertainty is not the same as "hiding" evidence

Who Else "Knew"

• Government agencies (EPA, DOE) had the same information
• Universities conducted parallel research
• The UN formed the IPCC in 1988 with publicly available data
• No entity had secret knowledge unavailable to others

The Real Motivation

• Trial lawyers have filed billions in lawsuits based on this narrative
• Activist campaigns aimed to delegitimize fossil fuel companies
• The "Exxon Knew" framing conflates research with coverup

Analysis#

This claim is mostly false because it fundamentally misrepresents what happened. Oil companies funded climate research, and that research was published in scientific journals for all to see. There was no concealment.

The claim that companies "hid" evidence requires ignoring that Exxon scientists presented at conferences and published papers. It also ignores that climate science at the time was genuinely uncertain—the same decade saw predictions of both warming and cooling.

Saying companies "knew" implies certainty that didn't exist and ignores that the entire scientific community was working with the same information. This is an activist narrative designed to support litigation, not an accurate description of history.