trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Exxon suppressed its own scientific results on climate change

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Evidence indicates that Exxon had accurate internal scientific knowledge about climate change from its own researchers and models, yet publicly downplayed and dismissed those risks for decades.

How claims like this are judged

Judged against reference works: claims of this kind are settled by the historical reference record, not journal abstracts.

Evidence for · 2
Recorded source metadata

Wikipedia: ExxonMobil. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

Reference article covering this claim directly

See more details
More for · 1
Recorded source metadata

science.org: Assessing ExxonMobil's global warming projections | Science. science.org. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

Shows internal models matched independent projections while public messaging contradicted this.

The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked31 Jul 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7531 Jul 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt