Perhaps the result has not yet been as catastrophic as he suggested at the time (I mean, it's Edward Teller, after all), but he was more generally correct that use of fossil fuels would have negative impact on the environment. CO2 levels would rise and cause warming. The later Stanford study noted in the article came to the same conclusion. The point of the article is that the oil industry knew by the end of the 1960s that this was a problem, and they buried it.
It isn't clear to me that they 'buried it', there are quite a few papers and studies on climate change that were funded by the oil and gas companies over the last 60 years. Have they argued against it over the years? Sure.
That in turn shows the strong difference between the papers and studies on climate change by Exxon-Mobil scientists, vs. what Exxon-Mobil was saying to the public, politicians, and shareholders.
"Burying" isn't quite the right word. As that link says:
The question we have addressed in this study is not whether ExxonMobil 'suppressed climate change research,' 'withheld it,' or 'sought to hide' it, which is how ExxonMobil has glossed the allegations against it [11, 12, 135]. This is also how the allegations have occasionally been presented in the press [136]. Our assessment of ExxonMobil's peer-reviewed publications and the role of its scientists supports the conclusion that the company did not 'suppress' climate science—indeed, it contributed to it.
However, on the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did. This conclusion is based on three factors: discrepancies in AGW communications between document categories; imbalance in impact of different document categories; and factual mispresentations in some advertorials.
Comments
Perhaps the result has not yet been as catastrophic as he suggested at the time (I mean, it's Edward Teller, after all), but he was more generally correct that use of fossil fuels would have negative impact on the environment. CO2 levels would rise and cause warming. The later Stanford study noted in the article came to the same conclusion. The point of the article is that the oil industry knew by the end of the 1960s that this was a problem, and they buried it.
It isn't clear to me that they 'buried it', there are quite a few papers and studies on climate change that were funded by the oil and gas companies over the last 60 years. Have they argued against it over the years? Sure.
The 'buried it' is addressed in the NYT link from that article, which I elsewhere pointed out references http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f .
That in turn shows the strong difference between the papers and studies on climate change by Exxon-Mobil scientists, vs. what Exxon-Mobil was saying to the public, politicians, and shareholders.
"Burying" isn't quite the right word. As that link says: