ExxonKnew: The Internal Documents on Climate Change
Declassified Exxon documents reveal the company knew about climate risks since 1977. Court records and FOIA releases expose decades of climate denial.
In 1977, Exxon's senior scientist James F. Black delivered a briefing to company executives with a stark conclusion: burning fossil fuels was warming the planet, and the consequences would be severe. Yet for the next four decades, Exxon spent millions funding climate denial campaigns while its internal research confirmed what the company publicly rejected. The ExxonKnew investigation reveals one of the most consequential cases of corporate deception in modern history, backed by declassified internal memos, court testimony, and FOIA-released documents that prove the company understood the climate crisis while publicly sowing doubt about its existence.
Quick Answer
Exxon's internal documents from 1977 onward show the company's scientists accurately predicted climate change impacts decades before public acknowledgment. Despite this knowledge, Exxon funded campaigns questioning climate science. Court filings, FOIA releases, and congressional testimony have confirmed these documents' authenticity, establishing that Exxon knew about climate risks while publicly denying them.
What Happened
The story begins with James F. Black, Exxon's Manager of the Fundamental Research Laboratory. In November 1977, Black presented findings to the company's management policy committee showing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. This presentation, confirmed through internal memos and later recovered by investigative journalists, demonstrates that Exxon's own scientists had reached conclusions aligned with mainstream climate science decades before the company acknowledged climate risks publicly.
Black's briefing was not an anomaly. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Exxon's internal research program consistently confirmed the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Internal documents released through FOIA requests and legal discovery processes show that Exxon's scientists published peer-reviewed research on climate impacts, conducted detailed analyses of sea-level rise projections, and modeled the effects of warming on infrastructure and business operations. The company even ran its own advanced climate modeling program, rivaling government agencies in sophistication.
Yet simultaneously, Exxon became one of the largest corporate funders of climate denial. Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s and 2000s, the company channeled millions to think tanks, front groups, and contrarian scientists who publicly questioned whether climate change was real or human-caused. Organizations like the American Petroleum Institute, the Heartland Institute, and various university "skeptic" programs received Exxon funding. These groups published op-eds, funded research, and organized campaigns specifically designed to create doubt about climate science, despite Exxon's own scientists confirming the opposite.
This discrepancy between internal knowledge and external messaging continued for decades. Internal cost-benefit analyses from the 1980s and 1990s, later released through litigation, show that Exxon executives calculated the costs of reducing emissions against the risks of climate impacts. Some documents indicate the company considered carbon taxes and other climate policies as business risks. Yet publicly, Exxon representatives testified before Congress that the science was uncertain and that more research was needed before acting on climate concerns.
The strategy began to unravel in the mid-2010s. An investigation by Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times, published in 2015, drew on decades of internal Exxon documents, interviews with former employees, and recovered correspondence to reconstruct the company's knowledge timeline. The reporting showed that Exxon scientists had briefed executives about climate risks with remarkable accuracy, and that company leadership had made conscious decisions to fund doubt campaigns despite internal certainty about climate change.
The Evidence
The primary evidence for ExxonKnew exists across multiple document categories, each independently verifiable through public sources.
Internal Company Memoranda: Declassified memos from Exxon's corporate archives, recovered by investigative journalists and later used in litigation, show explicit discussions of climate change risks. The November 1977 Black briefing stands as the most prominent example, but dozens of internal documents from subsequent years confirm ongoing awareness. These memos, reproduced in full by news outlets and litigation files, use terminology identical to mainstream climate science, not the language of uncertainty that Exxon promoted publicly.
FOIA-Released Documents: Freedom of Information Act requests have yielded correspondence between Exxon and federal agencies including the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. These documents show Exxon providing climate data to government bodies while simultaneously funding campaigns questioning climate reality. FOIA request logs at the Department of Energy and EPA maintain indices of these releases, though some documents remain redacted or withheld.
Court Records and Legal Discovery: State attorneys general investigations into Exxon's climate conduct have generated court filings containing thousands of pages of corporate documents. New York State's investigation, beginning in 2015 under Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, produced subpoenaed materials now part of the public record. While some court proceedings remain ongoing or under protective orders, portions have been unsealed and are available through New York State Supreme Court filing systems and legal document databases. Congressional hearings on Exxon's climate knowledge have also generated testimony and supporting materials available on Congress.gov.
Peer-Reviewed Research: Exxon-funded scientists published legitimate climate research in peer-reviewed journals throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This research, searchable through databases like Google Scholar and institutional repositories, confirms that Exxon's internal scientific work met professional standards while contradicting the company's public messaging. Studies examining this discrepancy, published in journals like Science and Environmental Research Letters, have analyzed the internal versus external narratives.
Congressional Testimony: Exxon executives and scientists have testified before Congress, creating official records available through Congress.gov. These testimonies sometimes directly contradicted information contained in internal documents later released, providing measurable evidence of the knowledge-denial gap.
Archival Materials: Universities and research institutions have preserved collections of Exxon-related documents, including the Stanford University Fossil Fuel Research Collection, which contains digitized internal company materials available for public research.
Why It Matters
The ExxonKnew documentation matters for several interconnected reasons: accountability, policy implications, and precedent.
First, ExxonKnew establishes legal and moral responsibility. If Exxon knew about climate change and deliberately obscured that knowledge, the company and its executives potentially bear direct responsibility for delayed climate action. Multiple state attorneys general have pursued fraud and deceptive practices cases based on this evidence, arguing that Exxon violated consumer protection and securities laws by misrepresenting climate risks to shareholders and the public.
Second, the case illuminates how corporate disinformation campaigns operate. Exxon's strategy of funding doubt while conducting internal research parallel to public denial provides a detailed blueprint of how large corporations can simultaneously pursue contradictory external and internal strategies. This has implications for understanding similar patterns at other energy companies, tobacco firms, and organizations facing regulatory or reputational threats.
Third, ExxonKnew intersects with broader questions about financial regulation and disclosure. The Securities and Exchange Commission has examined whether oil companies violated disclosure requirements by failing to adequately inform investors about climate risks. If executives knew about climate impacts internally but minimized those risks in shareholder communications, this constitutes securities fraud, a federal crime.
Finally, the case demonstrates the costs of delayed climate action. Exxon's decades of denial coincided with years when global emissions could have been more aggressively reduced. Economic models suggest that earlier climate action would have cost less and caused less damage than current remediation efforts. Exxon's role in that delay carries tangible consequences measurable in dollars, displaced populations, and environmental damage.
FAQ
Did Exxon's scientists actually predict climate change accurately?
Yes. James F. Black's 1977 presentation predicted a 2-3 degree Celsius warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's current estimates for similar CO2 doubling scenarios are 2.5-4 degrees Celsius, placing Exxon's prediction within the modern consensus range. Internal documents show Exxon scientists conducted detailed modeling of sea-level rise, precipitation changes, and ocean acidification, matching contemporary peer-reviewed projections.
What documents prove Exxon knew?
Primary evidence includes the November 1977 Black briefing memo (recovered from corporate archives and reproduced in litigation files), internal cost-benefit analyses from the 1980s-1990s, company emails discussing climate risks, and peer-reviewed publications authored by Exxon scientists. Court filings in New York State cases contain reproductions of these materials. The Stanford Fossil Fuel Research Collection maintains digitized versions of many documents.
How much money did Exxon spend on climate denial?
Exxon's direct and indirect funding of climate denial organizations totaled tens of millions of dollars across multiple decades. Documented contributions to think tanks and advocacy groups occurred throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Precise figures vary depending on methodology, but investigative reporting and nonprofit databases tracking corporate funding have documented amounts exceeding $30 million to identifiable climate skeptic organizations.
Are there legal consequences for Exxon?
Multiple state attorneys general have pursued cases, including New York's fraud investigation. The company has settled some claims, though major litigation remains ongoing. The SEC has examined whether Exxon violated disclosure rules. Some shareholder derivative suits have proceeded through various courts. No major criminal charges have been filed against the company, though civil liability cases continue.
How does ExxonKnew compare to other corporate cover-ups?
The case parallels tobacco industry deception, where companies possessed internal research showing health risks while funding doubt campaigns. It also resembles the lead poisoning cover-up by paint and gasoline manufacturers. Like these cases, ExxonKnew involved conscious strategies to obscure internal knowledge from regulators and the public, documented through company records that contradicted public statements.
---
Related Reading:
* Corporate Disinformation Campaigns
* Securities Fraud and Corporate Accountability
* The Tobacco Industry Documents
* How Think Tanks Shape Policy
* The Koch Network and Climate Denial