I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
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 since a few were not peer reviewed.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few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.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

And where is this second email?  The first is availble but the second isn't?

When talked to by Solomon... as seen in the pervious article I posted.  He claims the wikipedia entry is false.

"Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing."

Correct.  I don't pretend to know why they didn't include that email as well.  [edit:  You'll notice that the other quotes, the ones that CAN be found in the PDF, have the link by them, while the one that can't doesn't.]

Why should we give that guy any more, or even equal, credence with Media Watch?  In fact, look at the question that guy asked.  'Did you concede that Oreskes was right?'*  That is a completely different thing from what Media Watch says.  And glancing at the edit history in wikipedia it looks like the "conceding" as indeed that he backed down to the one article, and not conceding his disputation entirely MUCH LESS that Oreskes was "right".  So Media Watch and Peiser can both be perfectly compatible if we only conclude that Summers asked Peiser the wrong question.  I'll check the Wikipedia history more thoroughly later.

[edit:  Exact quote:  "Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

["I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing."]

[edit2:  After checking through what I think is all the relevant edits, the only thing I spotted that even remotely resembled an allegation that Peiser conceded that Oreskes was right was an 'edit remark' where the editor said something like "he admitted he was wrong", not specifying whether it was his position or his critique (albeit in neither case is that completely accurate).  In any case no such claim was ever in the Wikipedia article that I saw.]