"mhaze, something noticeable is that when science matters such as ARM and Copernicus are mentioned you do not tackle the science."

ant, you think ARM is important. I think it is just an interesting exercise. Hence I don't comment. Again you think its important because you misunderstand what the people you call deniers think. Very very few such people don't accept that, all else being equal, CO2 has a warming effect. Therefore ARM is hardly a game-changer.

Speaking of game-changers, following advice from someone at WUWT, I read the actual Exxon documents rather than the InsideClimateNews commentary on it. You should do likewise to learn how ICN cherry-picked and selectively and deceptively quoted to spin a story which, its clear, once you read the full text, isn't there.

" the Amazon was described as the lungs of the planet"
Yes at the time they meant it sucked in CO2 and exhaled oxygen, whcih is the opposite of lungs. But there is now some research that it indeed uses more oxygen (for decomposition) than it exhales.

" When can a prefix of catastrophic begin to be used?"
Simply listing a bunch f things that are clearly catastrophes doesn't cut it. The point is that those events have to be linked with some degree of certainty to AGW to create CAGW. But if you read the last IPCC report you'll see that even those devotees of the new faith have to admit that they have very little confidence that science can indeed link these things to AGW.

/cont

/cont
The history of mankind is, in part, the history of catastrophe. Was the plague which wiped out 1/3 of Europe a catasttrophe? Was it caused by man? Was Gilgamesh's flood a catastrophe? Was it cause by man? Well, yes it was if you accept that it was punishment for man's sins. And that's a little of what's going on here in the new religion. These catastrophes are seen by the new priesthood as punishment from the green Gods for the sin of burn fossil fuels, the sin of advancement.

There is a new hurricane developing of Mexico which is claimed to be one of the biggest recorded. Despite the fact that hurricane incidence is at a very low historic level and that, again, the IPCC acknowledges that they can't relate hurricane/cyclones to GW, its inevitable that the spruikers will claim that it is a man made catastrophe and proof of AGW. I suspect you'll buy that. But just in case you want to be somewhat informed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes

mhaze, the Los Angels Times and InsideClimateNews interviewed scientists who had worked for ExxonMobil and scientists from Government Agencies who had collaborated with the Companies scientists. It was not just quotes from documents as you suggested that were used. Many articles have been written taking on different aspects.

Anything in relation to WUWT is highly questionable, an example has already been given in relation to sea ice.

mhaze, the IPCC has been by passed by much science since their last Report.

Some glib comment about the Amazon, does not hide the difficulties of drought as displayed in the reference provided above. The Rio Negro normally is quite a large river. There is drought in the Amazon Basin caused by man with ramifications for climate change.

The current technique of deniers is to suggest they believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening; and then try and rebut everything that the science suggests.

Your WUWT person clearly did not have all the details ,mhaze.

To labour the point, you wrote: " following advice from someone at WUWT, I read the actual Exxon documents rather than the InsideClimateNews commentary on it. You should do likewise to learn how ICN cherry-picked and selectively and deceptively quoted to spin a story which, its clear, once you read the full text, isn't there."

Did your WUWT person tell you how Michael MacCracken; a government scientist, collaborated with ExxonMobil scientists?

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty

There are very extensive articles with short film clips of the relevant scientists making comments. Trust WUWT, I wouldn't, you have been conned.

Did your WUWT mate tell you about this clip from a scientist who worked for ExxonMobil, featuring Richard Werthamer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37L_qi1hupI&feature=youtu.be

"the IPCC has been by passed by much science since their last Report."

The report was released less than a year ago. Are you saying that after 5 years of research, evaluation and debate, the report is outdated after 12 months. Pretty funny. What you really mean is that you don't like the results and are prepared to grasp any straw so you can look the other way.

So what are these new miraculous studies that disprove what the IPCC said about hurricane/cyclones, droughts, floods etc?

The link I got from WUWT was to the original source documents. I read them. I prefer to get my data unfiltered by partisans. You should try it some time. As I said before, what Exxon said or didn't say, did or didn't do, is of passing interest only. The data is the point and unless there's some indication that Exxon et al managed to manipulate the data then its really by the by.

I understand that the true alarmist believes what he's been told - that the so-called deniers are in receipt of vast sums to deceive the public. I'd point you to the work down by Nova to show that deniers are outspent by the alarmists by orders of magnitude, but I suspect that would be a wasted effort.

The IPCC uses peer reviewed papers, it takes at least a year for papers to be accepted for publication. So the IPCC document represents science literature that is about two years old. James Powell study has shown that there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published during 2013 and 2014.

Photography from satellites has produced data since the last IPCC report that has significance.
A few fairly recent papers have been about hydro fracking, and seismic activity created by ice sheets calving (not to be confused with geological seismic activity). These are natural processes, but they indicate the depth of study involved with climate science. However, with greater breakdown of ice sheets these mechanical processes have a greater impact. There has been recent research on aerosols published, aerosols impact on climate. The point being that deniers often do not know what they are denying.

I'm aware that an earlier article; though not from insideclimatenews, about ExxonMobil covered documents only.
A Facebook film clip came my way yesterday of Bernie Fraser being interviewed by MSNBC, a quote going with video:

"Senator Bernie Sanders discusses his call for an investigation into ExxonMobil's climate denial, and the ways in which fossil fuel money--including billions from the Koch brothers--are behind Republican climate denial."

ExxonMobil used a tanker to study climate science, there is a film clip of a scientist involved with that project. The film clip shows a young scientist working on the tanker, interspersed with him speaking in recent times.

continued

continued

ExxonMobil scientists modelled what was expected to happen in the Arctic through climate change in 1984, their work has been found to be accurate. The names of a couple of ExxonMobil workers involved with the modelling have been included in the ICN papers.

The ICN incorporates some documentation in their articles, quotes scientists from the 70s and 80s, has interviewed some of the scientists, and has provided some film clips of scientists making comments about what was going on.

The Los Angeles Times independent research supports the thrust of what insideclimatenews has been stating about ExxonMobil.

There is a prima facie case against ExxonMobil supported by Sharon Eubanks, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney.
So you can try and downplay the matter, a denier technique; mhaze, but the facts speak for themselves.