I am too poor and isolated to penetrate the pay-wall. And I can't stand reading the details of a long paper anyway. :) I just like to make things up on the dribs and drabs of abstracts. After all, nobody who can actually read them is allowed to talk on social media. :)
As I have said, I refuse to get into the game of climate 'believers' and 'deniers'. That was something made up by climate philosophers. The scientific discussion should be between high, medium, and low carbon sensitivity.* For 'high' to exist, the ice ages must have been totally carbon driven. But ice ages are cyclic and high carbon offers no restoring force, since it is open-ended exponential. That is, driven up we become Venus, and driven down we become Pluto.
Thank god we have the ocean idea. This is fully cyclic, which means restoring forces. So a couple papers are on oceanic shifts in the Miocene. The southern ocean turned over in the late Miocene. Now, 'high' people can argue this sucked out carbon, but it also sucked out a lot of heat. You can tell the difference by the fact that only the Antarctic got iced. Carbon would have iced everywhere.
Another article is on giant pockmarks. I am the only person living (on the Web, at least) who has seen all our geophysics of the bottom of Lake Ontario and it was pocked with pock marks. :)
*I also believe that the carbon discussion is below one significant digit, not 3 as currently discussed.
Addendum: I have decided that 'high' means that carbon dominates over all other influences. Medium means that it is in the pack with all the others. Low means it is not significant.