ant,

As regards you, I don't "need" to do anything. Besides I don't know how much you don't know so I don't know what you need cited since there's nothing in my last post that anyone even vaguely conversant with the facts wouldn't already know.

What you need to do is:

1) read the source documents in regards to the Exxon papers
2) provide some sort of evidence in support of your claim that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times"
3) learn how to spell Marcott's name.

As regards you last bit on Greenland, it appears the study isn't about AGW and even it was then we'd have to assume that the same melting on the lower levels of the ice must have occurred in previous periods (eg 1000 AD) when, as we've learned over the last few days, temperatures were as higher or higher than now.

mhaze, studies have already been provided that show you are wrong about temperature over the last 11,000 years.

I've seen much material in relation to ExxonMobi; ExxonMobil is being investigated by a number of Attorney Generals. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Inside Climate News provide a paper trail from ExxonMobil.

Clearly, Greenland sheet ice being undermined does have an impact on climate change.
As predicted you cannot debunk that matter.

mhaze, you would not have seen these comments from ExxonMobil:

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

Quote:

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

The American Geophysical Union say:

" ... AGU’s Organizational Support Policy states “AGU will
not accept funding from organizational partners that
promote and/or disseminate misinformation of
science, or that fund organizations that publicly
promote misinformation of science,”....

ExxonMobil and a number of fossil fuel companies involved in promoting deception.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

See Figure 4 Road Map

Figure 7 is quite funny in a way.

Inside Climate News also goes into much detail through interviews with ExxonMobil employees, shows film clips, paper trail. Investigative journalism also displayed by Los Angeles Times.

Why would an Attorney General accuse ExxonMobil of deceit when ExxonMobil does not have a case to answer?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09082016/massachusetts-ag-maura-healey-criticizes-exxon-continuing-climate-deceit

The alleged case against ExxonMobil could come unstuck by the First and Forth Amendments; rather than, the evidence being flimsy.

The Huffington Post provides an article about ExxonMobil funding politicians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/does-exxonmobil-really-su_b_9246950.htm

"studies have already been provided that show you are wrong about temperature over the last 11,000 years."

Now you're straight out lying.

I make no comment on the Exxon BS until you've read the source documents. Once you've read them you'll understand why the various AG's are running away from this as fast as possible.

mhaze, lying?

I didn't say that I had provided the references.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NgIqKD_aX4M05NNmsyRXQxWm8/edit?pref=2&pli=1

Also:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

Another reference is:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Powell et al in a study in 2013 and 2014 found there was something like 12,000 peer reviewed climate science papers published each year in journals. In no way does climate science hang on your blind alley.

You have accused me of lying previously in relation to a quote. The quote came from AAAS which you need to register with to view papers that are over two/three years old. A few times I suggested you register with AAAS, bet you haven't.

Apparently there is some psychological projection going on.

Hi Ant,
the first graphic on this page says it all, doesn't it? One has to cherrypick some very specific areas of the chart to take MHaze's fazed out, hazed out point of view.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html