The 'buried it' is addressed in the NYT link from that article, which I elsewhere pointed out references
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f .
That in turn shows the strong difference between the papers and studies on climate change by Exxon-Mobil scientists, vs. what Exxon-Mobil was saying to the public, politicians, and shareholders.
"Burying" isn't quite the right word. As that link says:
> The question we have addressed in this study is not whether ExxonMobil 'suppressed climate change research,' 'withheld it,' or 'sought to hide' it, which is how ExxonMobil has glossed the allegations against it [11, 12, 135]. This is also how the allegations have occasionally been presented in the press [136]. Our assessment of ExxonMobil's peer-reviewed publications and the role of its scientists supports the conclusion that the company did not 'suppress' climate science—indeed, it contributed to it.
> However, on the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did. This conclusion is based on three factors: discrepancies in AGW communications between document categories; imbalance in impact of different document categories; and factual mispresentations in some advertorials.
