ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, left, and other oil company heads testify about energy pricing and profits at a Congressional hearing in November 2005. Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesWhen the Exxon Valdez spilled more than 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989, Exxon President Lee Raymond oversaw the cleanup and a US$1 billion federal settlement for the extensive damage to the coastline and wildlife. Afterward, he helped lead a 14-year legal battle that ultimately got courts to cut a $5 billion punitive damages award for business and property owners harmed by the spill to $500 million.
Along the way, Raymond denounced environmentalists as “extremists” and “ideologues,” falsely blaming them for exacerbating a disaster that investigators attributed to errors by the ship’s crew.
When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in March 1989, its oil spread over more than 1,300 miles (2,100 kilometers) of shoreline and was blamed for the deaths of 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, as many as 22 killer whales and billions of salmon and herring eggs, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
ARLIS Reference via Flickr, CC BY-SA
But Raymond’s most consequential legacy will be his role in spreading doubt about climate change.
Leveraging his scientific credentials – a Ph.D. in chemical engineering – Raymond, who died on June 9, 2026, at the age of 87, sought to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming.
In a 2005 interview with broadcaster Charlie Rose, Raymond repeated his attempts to link present-day climate change, which is far faster and more severe than at any time in the geological record, to natural causes rather than human activities like burning fossil fuels.
“It has to do with sun spots. It has to do with the wobble of the Earth,” Raymond said before reminding viewers, “Look, I am a scientist.”
Raymond, Exxon’s CEO from 1993 through 2005, including after its 1999 merger with Mobil, made these claims despite mounting global evidence that burning fossil fuels was driving climate change. Exxon’s own scientists had produced some of the most accurate early models of human-caused climate change years earlier, showing how greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels worldwide would continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and raise global temperatures.
A PBS ‘Frontline’ investigation explores Exxon’s historical climate change research and the company’s conflicting public statements.
Under Raymond’s leadership, Exxon also helped fund a sophisticated climate misinformation network, directing millions of dollars to organizations that promoted climate denial, particularly denial that human activities were fueling climate change, while insisting that the science remained “unsettled.” Internal documents from Exxon and other companies and industry groups have offered insight into how well officials understood the risks they were denying.
Why misinformation works and how to disable it
Climate misinformation ranges from misleading to absurd. Some efforts to mislead the public falsely attribute climate change to natural forces; deny links between greenhouse gas emissions, rising temperatures and extreme weather; and cast doubt on solutions such as renewable energy and electric vehicles.
The most egregious claims portray fossil fuels and global warming as beneficial, while denying the fact that burning fossil fuels raises global temperatures, which increase flooding, drought, sea-level rise and other consequences of climate change. Others veer into conspiracy theory, like alleging that climate-fueled wildfires were deliberately set to destroy child-trafficking tunnels.
As over-the-top as many of these examples may seem, climate misinformation tactics have served as highly effective tools for oil, gas and coal companies in the fight for both public support and to block climate laws and policies that would restrict the use of their products.
Exploiting human psychology
These tactics can succeed because they exploit psychological and social processes that help people evaluate the credibility of information.
For example, fossil fuel-funded think tanks and politicians often reinforce misinformation efforts by pointing to the opinions of scientists with iffy credentials who, nevertheless, seem credible by virtue of the simple fact that they have received Ph.D.s. Getting to the bottom of their actual scientific credentials requires more careful scrutiny of their resumes.
Likewise, misinformation is often built on stories with high emotional appeal. This tactic works for topics like climate change because triggering people’s emotions can cause people to ignore objective data.
An ad released during the 2017 Super Bowl uses emotional appeals.
Some textbook examples include stories that incite fear and panic that reducing our reliance on oil and gas would lead to both widespread and permanent unemployment and demolish the economy. Similarly, misinformation about climate change seems believable to people when it aligns with their preexisting beliefs or behaviors. And repeated exposure to false claims, such as on social media, can increase the perception that they are credible.
Pre-bunking to inoculate against misinformation
Fighting back against misinformation about climate change has proved to be possible, though not easy. One promising strategy, “pre-bunking,” involves helping people understand the tactics of those spreading misinformation so they can recognize it as false.
Pre-bunking is like a vaccine that protects people’s minds against lies. It can prompt people to ask critical questions about the sources and communication styles of those sharing misinformation and propaganda.
How to pre-bunk misleading information on social media. ‘60 Minutes’
And because funny memes and funny people are both easier to understand and viewed as credible, others have used humor to try to counter climate misinformation. Activists often use humor in their signs or when highlighting the absurdity of false claims, for example.
Critical reasoning is critical – so is courage
An even more important tool is the ability to think critically.
In my work as a psychologist and environmental scientist, critical thinking isn’t just a catchphrase. It hinges on a high degree of self-awareness, which allows us to recognize when our instincts would benefit from a reality check rather than simply ignoring or dismissing information that is inconvenient or that contradicts our initial beliefs.
Critical reasoning also depends on knowing when to seek out and listen to people with more expertise or experience than we possess. And, above all, it requires a willingness to change our minds and behaviors – and to learn from the outcomes after we do – when credible information suggests that we should.
Climate marches, like this one in the Netherlands in September 2022, are often filled with witty signs meant to be memorable.
Ana Fernandez/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
In addition to critical reasoning, addressing climate change, and misinformation about it, requires another important ingredient: courage.
It’s not easy for people to admit when they are uninformed or wrong, or that they might need help from experts.
But it would be wrong to place the burden of courage on the consumer. Doing so would perpetuate another mistruth often peddled by Big Oil: that it’s everyday consumers who are ultimately responsible for causing climate change, and for taking the necessary steps to fix it.
Where the burden of courage really lies
The real burden of courage lies on corporate leaders like Lee Raymond.
It’s no secret in the oil and gas business that the name of the game is protecting investments and assets and generating profits. But companies can do these things while also telling the truth and publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change. To resort to lies and misinformation is a tactic of the weak and desperate.
Not only that, but publicly traded companies that knowingly lie about material risks are breaking the law. By not exhibiting honesty, companies and their executives deprive their shareholders of the opportunity to hold them accountable – accountable for balancing long-term risks, like those from climate change, against short-term financial returns and, ultimately, for ensuring the company and the money invested in it remains viable far into the future.
This is especially true of a company like ExxonMobil, which promotes itself as an energy company, not just a producer of oil and gas. As CEO, Raymond should have known this. And, as someone who liked to remind others that he was a scientist, he should have known better.
Over the course of his career, Joe Árvai has received funding from the International Development Research Centre of Canada, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation, and others.