When the 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 that ultimately got courts to for business and property owners harmed by the spill to $500 million.

Along the way, Raymond denounced environmentalists as “extremists” and “ideologues,” that .

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 that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming.

In a , 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 that burning fossil fuels was driving climate change. Exxon’s own scientists had produced some of the years earlier, showing how greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels worldwide would continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and raise global temperatures.

Under Raymond’s leadership, Exxon also helped fund a , to organizations that , particularly denial that human activities were fueling climate change, while insisting that the science remained “.” and industry groups have offered insight into how well officials understood the .

Why misinformation works and how to disable it

ranges from misleading to absurd. Some efforts to mislead the public to ; between greenhouse gas emissions, rising temperatures and extreme weather; and such as renewable energy and electric vehicles.

The most portray fossil fuels and , 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 , 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 and 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 often reinforce misinformation efforts by pointing to the opinions of scientists with iffy credentials who, nevertheless, seem credible by . Getting to the bottom of their actual scientific credentials requires more .

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 .

Some textbook examples include stories that 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 . And repeated , such as , 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 that protects people’s minds against lies. It can prompt people to about the sources and communication styles of those sharing misinformation and propaganda.

And because are both easier to understand and viewed as credible, to try to counter climate misinformation. Activists often use 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.

, critical thinking . 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 – and to after we do – when credible information suggests that we should.

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 : 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 . 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 . 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 , 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.