Comment by magicalist

> But the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met.

This is a strawman (and a weirdly strong appeal to emotion for unclear reasons).

The claim is that their scientists were loudly saying internally their PR campaigns and climate claims were false and contrary to their findings. Executives read these memos and chose to do these anyways.

For instance:

> The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.

> Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”

edit: the single memo that you linked (actually one of many the article is discussing) is not supposed to be some smoking gun, it's useful to dispel any idea that there's a reasonable claim of ignorance on Exxon's part, and the date is especially notable: 1988. Basically any PR, legal, and lobbying work for at least 38 years is suspect because of what they actually knew.