Oil behemoth Exxon won a big climate trial on daddy's little cumdrum sex videoTuesday.

But critically, while New York State Supreme Court judge Barry Ostrager found the company did not deceive investors about the risks posed by sinking money into future oil projects, Ostrager emphasized this doesn't excuse Exxon from its role in warming the planet.

"Climate science wasn’t on trial, and the judge acknowledged that," said Carroll Muffett, a lawyer and president of the Center for International Environmental Law.

"Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve ExxonMobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases in the production of its fossil fuel products," wrote Ostrager. "ExxonMobil does not dispute either that its operations produce greenhouse gases or that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. But ExxonMobil is in the business of producing energy, and this is a securities fraud case, not a climate change case."

New York Attorney General Leticia James argued the oil giant had misled investors about the future cost of extracting and selling fossil fuels. Specifically, the state alleged that Exxon, in forecasting how much money its fossil fuel operations would make in the future, did not faithfully account for how much expected climate change regulations (like a tax on carbon or on certain types of carbon-heavy fuels) would reduce demand for fossil fuels and hurt the company's bottom line — and ultimately its investors.

As the planet continues to relentlessly warm and drive historic weather extremes, it's likely global governments will find ways to make burning fossil fuels increasingly expensive, and less viable. In fact, the United Nations is currently negotiating how to put a price on carbon.

But Ostrager ultimately found the attorney general's suit didn't prove Exxon had "significantly altered" the big picture to people investing in its multi-billion dollar fossil fuel extraction endeavors, like sprawling oil deposits in Alberta, Canada. No one was miffed, according to Ostrager.

Exxon's victory is not surprising. During the trial, the state did not bring up a single Exxon investor, to say under oath, that Exxon had hoodwinked them. This doomed the attorney general's case, said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior counsel in the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic at Vermont Law School.

"It blew up in their faces," Parenteau said.

"Don’t take on the tiger unless you've got the goods," he said, referencing Exxon's excellent, experienced, and well-funded legal team.

Exxon is, of course, pleased with the decision. "We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change," the company said in a statement.

But, importantly, this is just one nuanced case, decided by one judge, in one courthouse on the south end of Manhattan. Exxon still has another 15 climate lawsuits to contend with, so far, noted Parenteau.

"Those are totally different cases," he said. "This victory is not going to vindicate them in any other way."

"They are far from out of the woods," agreed the Center for International Environmental Law's Muffett. "This is one chapter in the long story these companies are facing."

The other cases involve Exxon's (and other fossil fuel companies') responsibility for causing and exacerbating climate change. A particularly significant lawsuit comes from the Massachusetts attorney general, who argues that Exxon's misleading claims to its investors violated the state's Consumer Protection Act.

In the complicated, nuanced world of litigation, losing is often expected, especially for novel climate lawsuits that are relatively new to judges, and the law. Indeed, it took some 30 years for lung cancer victims, families, and governments to start winning lawsuits against tobacco companies, noted Muffett.

"There are always going to be cases that go badly," said Muffett. "The tobacco companies only won until they started losing."