Leo
You still haven't answered the questions I asked.
Whether the ARM study was the first to take data from the natural environment or not is not much of an argument you put, Leo. Data obtained is important; a little unpalatable when it doesn't agree with your opinion.

Leo, why would ExxonMobil make pledges to shareholders about not funding denier groups if they had not been conducting such an activity.

"Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists."

From:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

So the past history of ExxonMobil management is catching up on them.

Ken Cohen, a current executive of ExxonMobi has praised the ExxonMobil scientists who were working in the 1970s and 1980s; they held a consensus view on climate change. On that basis; Leo, by your logic, they must have been committing fraud.

It is very convenient to say fraud began with James Hansen; yet, ExxonMobil scientists were having papers published indicating a consensus view on anthropogenic climate change.

James Hansen has not been investigated for criminal actions; whereas, management fron ExxonMobil is being investigated.

I do not know what questions you mean flea. Do you consider baseless assertion of human caused global warming to be fraud? There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so the assertion is baseless. You put forward some imagined study by ARM, which you cannot verify. If there were any such science, the IPCC would trumpet it from the rooftops, instead of their pathetic “95% certain”, when they are aware that the 3% of CO2 comprising human emissions is trivial, and its effect is not measurable.
That is clear enough, and does not require stupid questions from you. Anyone who has made the baseless assertion has made a fraudulent statement. Even you can understand that, despite your mistaken grasp of logic.
Exxon have supported climate truth promoters (called "deniers",by the fraud promoters) and the investigations are ridiculous, but consistent with the mischief the fraud promoters are capable of generating. If it comes to a trial, Exxon will have the opportunity to see that the truth prevails.
As mhase pointed out, you have no grasp of the situation, flea, and as usual, are talking baseless nonsense.

Leo, I gave you a references to what you say is an imagined ARM study. Embarrassing isn't it when an 11 year old study shows how wrong you are?

The more you write Leo, the more it is apparent that Physics and Chemistry are not your forte.

Management of ExxonMobil supported denier groups; but the climate scientists employed by ExxonMobil in the 70s and 80s believed in the science.

Katherine Hayhoe, a religious climate scientist had one of ExxonMobil's scientists as a mentor; she has praised her mentor profusely. Katherine Hayhoe believes strongly in the consensus view of climate change as does her mentor. Your logic would suggest that Katherine and her mentor have committed fraud.

Please keep responding Leo, you are hitting home goal after home goal.

The following expands on just how nonsensical the flea’s comments on Exxon Mobil are, and provides comment on his source of misinformation:

“McKibben, for instance, wrote, "Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming."

But if you read the documents, it will become clear the opposite is true.

Reading the documents shows that these allegations are based on deliberately cherry-picked statements attributed to various Exxon-Mobil employees to wrongly suggest definitive conclusions were reached decades ago by company researchers. These statements were taken completely out of context and ignored other readily available statements demonstrating that our researchers recognized the developing nature of climate science at the time which, in fact, mirrored global understanding.

What these documents actually demonstrate is a robust culture of scientific discourse on the causes and risks of climate change that took place at ExxonMobil in the 1970s and '80s and continues today. They point to corporate efforts to fill the substantial gaps in knowledge that existed during the earliest years of climate change research.

They also help explain why ExxonMobil would work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading universities like MIT and Stanford on ways to expand climate science knowledge.

So read them. I am guessing that InsideClimate News is counting on readers not doing that and instead just trusting its "reporting" and "analysis.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/exxon-hits-back-on-ridiculous-rico-allegations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/

This clarifies why the flea refuses to read the documents. He hates the truth. It confuses him, when his basic purpose is to promote climate fraud.

Leo
Independently of Inside Climate News the Attorney General's Department of New York was investigating ExxonMobil. The Inside Climate News series of articles includes quotes, interviews and film clips of comments from ExxonMobil scientists. Separate to ICN, the Los Angeles Times and Union of Concerned Scientists also investigated ExxonMobil.

Can you provide an explanation as to why management felt compelled to pledge not funding denier groups in 2007?

Please don't insult people by providing Watts as a reference. He is not a scientist and has been caught out with wrong information. In the past he has suggested that Arctic sea ice extent was increasing at a high rate. Neven, I understand is a climate scientist, he has presented a number of comments in relation to Watts:

http://neven1.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a0133f03a1e37970b0133f03a1e3f970b/search?filter.q=Watts

You cannot be as idiotic as you pretend to be, flea. The article was not by Watts, who in any event runs a respected web-site. Inside Climate News has shown itself to be misinforming its readers, if you read the documents which they are misrepresenting.The article is by Ken CohenVice President Public and Government AffairsExxon Mobil Corporation.
You still have not read the documents, but continue to make uninformed stupid remarks about them.
The link you supply to Neven says nothing about Watts, but I suppose you merely intended to waste my time

The flea has the temerity to question my education while he demonstrates continually that he is an ignoramus. I was a top student in English, mathematics and physics, mid range in chemistry. I also learned the rules of debate, of which the flea has demonstrated he is as clueless, as he is of logic. One rule, which I have copied from a debating society page, which the flea should acknowledge, is:

“the side bearing the onus of persuasion must discharge that burden or lose. Except when the negative introduces a Counter-Plan, the onus of persuasion lies upon the affirmative team. “
http://debatingsociety.ca/ns/rules/NS_Rules.pdf
The onus is on the flea in relation to his support of the assertion that humans cause global warming. He has to explain how, when 97% of atmospheric CO2 is contributed by nature, the trivial contribution by humans is the cause. If CO2 is the cause of the warming, he has to explain how, when the computer models say that the content of CO2 will cause global warming to continue, the warming stopped, over 18 years ago. There are serious problems with the science of the effect of the atmospheric CO2 content.
Asking stupid questions and repeating scurrilous nonsense about Exxon-Mobil will not discharge the onus, and that is all that the flea has contributed.