ant,
1. Zaks et al?? Its Vaks. Good to see you're so conversant with this. I've given up trying toget you to read source material. Clearly its too complex or you're just worried that you might find something that you don't want to find.
Here's part of the conclusion to the Vaks (or Zaks?) study.."Using PWP SST as a surrogate for global temperature suggests
that increase in global temperatures by 0.5-1.0°C will degrade only noncontinuous permafrost in southern Siberia with the Gobi Desert remaining arid. Warming of ~1.5°C (i.e., as in MIS-11) may cause a substantial thaw of continuous permafrost as far north as 60°N, and create wetter conditions in the Gobi Desert."

Now I don't know how much you don't know but I just tell you that we've had warming of 0.5-1.0°C. So according to Vaks this will "degrade only noncontinuous permafrost". So the warming to date is in areas that have been frozen in the last few centuries. We have to get to 1.5c warming to have the affects you claim. And if you read more you'd know that we haven't had that yet and won't for decades to come at current rates. The conclusion is obvious but I doubt you'll get it.

2. "When taking into account the number of papers published in previous years and the thousands that have been published this year"

Yes I get it. You haven't got the foggiest idea if the IPCC conclusions have been overturned but hope that they have been and this, to you, makes it a fact. Oh dear!

/cont

/cont

3. Exxon. Obviously you have no intention of reading the actual documents since it might not confirm what you want to be true. So I'll give you just a flavour of what you'd find if you had the slightest interest in seeking the truth.

Here's what you heroes at ICN said " Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.". If you read the Black report you'd indeed find him saying that the current models show a warming of 2-3c for a doubling of CO2. BUT you'd also find all the caveats he puts on that eg "Mathematical models for predicting the climatic effect of a
C02 increase have not progressed to the point at which all the feedback interactions which can be important to the outcome can be included" or "The CO2 increase measured to date is not capable of producing an effect large enough to be distinguished from normal climate variations."

ICN picked out the part where he stated the current state of the science and neglected to point out how he then described all the problems with the then current state of the science.
They basically lied to their readers and you fell for it. Now don't you feel silly? That's why you have to read the source documents. Here endeth the lesson.

4. "your commentary has changed from years ago. "
Well Steele claimed that and when I asked for evidence, his reply was a firm, unequivocal, silence. But that doesn't matter to you.

5. So now the Indonesian fires are caused by CAGW? I guess in the fantasy-world you inhabit EVERY problem is caused by CO2. I stubbed my toe yesterday. CO2 obviously caused it.
A great shame about cyclone Patricia. All the usual suspects were predicting it to be the biggest of all time blah blah blah. And then it was a fizzer. But that doesn't matter. They just move onto the next 'proof' that we're all gunna die, and the perpetually gullible will sagely nod along.

The first signature on the ridiculous letter sent by Sanders to Obama and others is a professor Shukla, of George Mason University, who is now the centre of an enquiry into the misapplication of funds from the Institute of Global Environment

“Under federal law, state employees may not be remunerated for doing work which falls under their state employee remit. As a Professor at GMU, Shukla is definitely an employee of the state. And the work for which he has most lavishly been rewarding himself at IGES appears to be remarkably similar to the work he does at GMU as professor of climate dynamics.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/climate-alarmist-caught-largest-science-scandal-u-s-history/

Serious allegations, as against the nonsense about Exxon Mobil in support ofwhich there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, as the flea is well aware. He posts nonsense like this, attempting to divert from the fact that he has no more science to support his nonsense than the delusional Rusty Reflux. Their basis for support of the climate fraud is purely dishonesty, as they have no rational basis, and no basis in science

mhaze, the absolute doozy in your last reply was stating SteeleRedux had not displayed your comments from the past.
SteeleRedux wrote:"“Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.” There are other quotes from you that SteeleRedux provided on the 22 October 2015.

There's an incredible amount of permafrost in Arctic Circle, the definition of permafrost is areas that have been frozen for two or more years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71YvYqJWQc

There have been at least 3 separate investigations into ExxonMobile, one concentrated on documentation, the other two employed documentation, and quotes and interviews; one includes film clips.
It has been the Union of Concerned Scientists, Los Angeles Times and ICN.
Deforestation is seen to be part of climate change; fires lite by man have caused the current problems in Indonesia.

As stated earlier Leo would not accept the science provided by the 11 year ARM study, which brought in thousands of bits of data. Leo has shown himself not to have any understanding of isotopes.

Senator Whitehouse requested official investigations into ExxonMobil much before Bernie Sanders.

Reflux has posted more irrelevant nonsense, but no science, just complaints that I point out that there is no science to back his support of the climate fraud.
Give us the reference, Reflux, to the science which demonstrates a measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Human emissions of carbon dioxide are about 3% as against 97% by nature. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
“. It is therefore crystal clear that there is nothing inherently unusual, nor necessarily dangerous, about the ‘extra’ carbon dioxide that is currently being contributed to the atmosphere by human activity, which anyway amounts annually to only about three per cent of the natural flux”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

Leo, regardless of the evidence placed about science you have been making the same refrain for several years. Try the ARM 11 year study and the science around isotopes.
The ARM study was about CO2 and how it reacts in the open environment.

ExxonMobil scientists accepted the science of anthropogenic climate change in the 1970s and 80s. ExxonMobil even fitted a tanker to measure CO2 at various locations. The Inside Climate News show a film clip of a young scientist working on the tanker and also displays comments made in more recent times from the scientist.