The oil industry began hiring engineers and scientists to study the effects of burning fossil fuels on global warming as early as 1958. It was intended to assist the oil industry's major conglomerates in understanding how changes in the earth's atmosphere could affect their bottom line and help them understand the implications. However, the top executives were able to see the effects of climate change in advance, many decades before it became public awareness.Two dozen lawsuits are attempting to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. Many of these cases are based on internal documents from the industry that reveal how researchers 40 years ago predicted rising global temperatures with astonishing accuracy. However, these same scientists admit that they weren't whistleblowers trying to destroy big oil.Later, some researchers testified before Congress using their insider knowledge and to expose the many ways the oil industry misled people. Others disagree with the way that the petroleum giants conducted their research.However, few could have foreseen the impact their work would leave on history. It was a result of efforts to hold the fossil fuel sector responsible for the climate crisis. Three of these scientists were interviewed by The Guardian to find out their views on the role they play today.Dr Martin Hoffert (83), physicist, Exxon consultant, 1981-1987Marty Hoffert. Photograph by Zack Wittman/The GuardianExxon was my first consulting company. I already knew that carbon dioxide would affect the Earth's climate. Because the global warming signal was not yet evident in data, there were very few people who were actively working to address this problem. Exxon invited me to join their research group. One of the conditions was that we publish our scientific research into peer-reviewed journals. It was a group of geeks trying out to understand the planet's atmosphere.Exxon was doing great work. Eight scientific papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. One of these papers was a prediction about how much global warming would occur from carbon dioxide buildup 40 years later. In 1980, we predicted the amount of atmospheric warming that would result from fossil fuel burning by 2020. It would be around one degree celsius, we predicted. It is now at one degree celsius.I didn't realize that this would become a political problem. I thought, "Well, do the analyses, write reports", and the politicians around the world will be able to see them. They'll then make the necessary changes and transform the energy system. If you find something that proves to be valid in your field, you are a hero. It was difficult to convince people even though they had objective evidence.Marty Hoffert: I didn't realize how difficult it would be convincing people. Photograph by Zack Wittman/The GuardianExxon employed a man in 1980 who was the inventor of the lithium battery. This is the same guy that electric cars use today. For his work with lithium batteries, this guy was awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry. Imagine if Exxon had taken our prediction seriously. They could easily have built massive factories to produce lithium batteries that would facilitate the transition to electric vehicles. Instead, they fired him. They stopped all energy work. They also began funding climate deniers.People often ask me, "How much time do you have before you can stop this problem?". It's already happening.Ken Croasdale (82), engineer and researcher at Imperial Oil, 1968-1992In the late 1980s when I worked for Imperial Oil, I headed a small group that was responsible for Arctic research and development. My specialization was in building offshore structures within the Arctic region. In the early 1990s, I conducted an assessment of Arctic ice conditions. How would these changes affect our operations?I was specifically interested in offshore operations. We are interested in the thickness of ice when we study engineering structures. One question was: How thin might the ice get in a warmer world? What would this mean for the design of our platforms?I don't feel like Im doing anything to help the evil empire. I don't feel shameAt the time, climate research was not a major concern for the company. People would shrug their shoulders and admit that there was much uncertainty. You would say, "You need to look at this," and they'd respond, "Maybe we do, or maybe not."According to me, climate change is happening. However, the main driver of climate change is population growth and consumption. The world population was approximately 1.3 billion when my grandfather was born. It was around 2.2 billion when I was born. Today, it is about 7.5 billion. According to the UN, there will be a population of around 10 billion people by 2055. This is my view of the main driver of our environment's worsening.Personally, I have never felt any discomfort from working for oil companies. The people I worked alongside were as ethical and honest as those I have worked with in other companies. I don't feel ashamed that I am helping an evil empire. I'm just helping a company to produce a product that is still widely consumed around the world.Steve Lonergan (71), Exxon consultant, 1989-1990Steve Lonergan. Photograph by Peter LonerganIn the 1980s and 1990s, I was involved with research into the economic and social impacts of climate change on Canada's north. This type of work was not common at the time. Exxon Canada asked me to give them an assessment on how it would impact their north operations.These models could only project general projections for different levels of carbon dioxide or CO 2, and were best used in regional settings. It was a technical group and I don't know if they had any influence over Exxon's senior management. A few engineers were concerned about global warming. It is not clear if they spoke up.Most scientists of the time believed that changes in CO2 emissions would have an impact on temperature and precipitation. Of course, the public and industries didn't agree with this view, as did the governments and governments. However, the majority of scientists agreed. This was not something that was new to us.A few engineers were concerned about global warming. It is not clear if they spoke up.Although the models were not very precise at the time, they gave an idea that warming will increase as you move further north. The main reason is that the ice melts. It was a question of what does that mean for permafrost. What does it signify for ice breaking?My partner and me were interested in not only looking at average temperature and average precipitation but also the variability, or the extremes. We began to explore how extremes in temperature or precipitation could be modelled. This is crucial for the north, as there are many communities where the refrigeration is only a crate outside during winter. It can also be used to freeze reindeer meat.However, if January is a time of extreme temperatures and above-freezing temperatures, it can pose a problem for food supplies. Our modeling showed that, even if CO2 levels doubled, 50% of January's temperatures would rise above freezing. This is despite the fact that it was usually -32 degrees.Six to seven years later, temperatures were above freezing every day for at least two weeks, and all the reindeer meat was thawed. It was amazing that it happened so quickly. This was my biggest surprise.Because I wanted to be an objective observer, I was not a member for a long time of the Sierra Club and the Western Canadian Wilderness Society. I wanted to be viewed as someone whose advocacy was through their work. We need to do good research on climate change as it is an important environmental issue.People like Greta Thunberg are essential. We also need scientific evidence to support some of these changes. This was the role I felt that I had.This story was published as part Covering Climate Now, an international collaboration of news outlets that strengthens coverage of the climate story
