I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

And for giggles:
"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch, 12th October, 2006

1... from the critera she used.  Not total.  Once again interpretation of a source and not a direct source... which he is.
There is him directly stating something... then Mediawatch claiming something else.
Furthermore they said this proved Oresthkis correct when it did not.
You don't seem to be grapsing the issue of the misquote.
They are suggesting he admited he was wrong and that her research data was right.
When infact she ran a poorly run study, which he still maintains, and the poorly run study still did show issues with her work.

If you're saying Media Watch LIED about his backing down from "a few" to "one", I'm going to need you to produce more evidence than say-so. 

Short of that, his claim of stuff within the scope of her study that is not consistent with her claim has been reduced from 34 to one (the non-peer-reviewed AAPG thing).  Which seems to me to contradict your position "That's not at all what that says at all.  It says he's retracted some.  Not all but 1... but some... since a few were not peer reviewed.  Not close to all but 1 though."

I'm sure Oreskes' "study" is probably given more merit than it should have, but in and of itself it is not even remotely as incorrect as Peiser had claimed, and he has admitted this. 

The proof is in the article you posted.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

You can see the source Mediawatch used and how they misquoted him.

No.  Here's my interpretation: 

In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims.
Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.
Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
^ THIS IS THE QUOTE FROM THE PDF. 
So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...
Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
^ THIS IS FROM ANOTHER EMAIL ENTIRELY
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)
Peiser says he withdrew his criticism in March this year. 

Okay?  Now if you could come up with some evidence that he only admits to the content of the first email and not the others, then you'd have something. 

On his website, a short perusal does not reveal updates of any sort to the figure. 
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm