“Whereas: The ‘scientific consensus’1 2 claims anthropogenically-driven climate change will result in catastrophic
impacts to the environment, to the planet, and to humans. However, research increasingly shows worst-case
scenarios are unlikely, and the potential consequences of carbon dioxide emissions (aka ‘plant food’) have been
greatly overstated.3 For example:
‰ Corporate climate policy is often guided by the Paris Agreement, which is heavily informed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.4 These targets are neither legally binding nor legitimized by
scientific evidence.
‰ The IPCC’s most extreme scenario unrealistically assumes a return to a previous era of unrestricted fossil fuel
usage and heavy reliance on coal power.5 This extreme scenario is unlikely now that most nations have climate
policies in place.6
‰ Regarding catastrophic scenarios that are highly unlikely but are treated as the expectation, ‘the media then often
amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion
regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of
these scenarios in the energy-modeling literature.’7
‰ These apocalyptic predictions have been repeatedly proven false.8 Climate models used to predict future events
‘may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically
high.’9
‰ Renewable energy will not replace hydrocarbons in the near future, if ever.10 ExxonMobil Corporation’s
(‘ExxonMobil’ or the ‘Company’) competitors are betting big on hydrocarbons.11