Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Once again quoting the same article. (You have read this article correct?)
"Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved."
Peiser himself looked over the wikipedia entry and said he did not see the changes. Had there been any sort of miscommunication between Solomon and Peiser over the content of the Wikipedia article would not Peiser have noticed when he checked for the corrections?
Clearly Peiser thought the Wikipedia article was wrong... and was looking for Solomon's corrections which did not appear. |
Perhaps Solomon detailed what he had edited so that Peiser would know what to look for (and obviously failed to find).
I defy you to find a portion of any of the incarnations of that Wikipedia article that have text that could be characterized as saying 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".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Oreskes&diff=prev&oldid=201071198
|
And failing to find it he would of found what the wikipedia entry did say no?
That explination is really grasping for straws... and quite honestly pretty intellectually dishonest.
|
Yes, he found what it did say. Unless I misrecall, we never find out what Peiser's actual thoughts are on any specific thing in the Wikipedia article, only his refutation of Solomon's paranoid fantasy WHICH NEVER EXISTED IN THE ARTICLE.
Honestly, explain to me why I am being intellectually dishonest and I might forgive you for making me read that embarrasing rant.
|
Well for one your ignoring line 37. Citing the link you yourself posted again.
As such, the original article and its author appear to have been vindicated. Indeed, the now withdrawn criticisms serve as an example of what she refers to in her article as the media debate over climate change, which stands in contrast to the scientific consensus.
I mean did you only read the Line 26 edit or something?
It says she was vindicated and he withdrew his criticism. Which he did not. He still has criticisms with her study.
Besides, Pesier called Solomon and said the changes weren't made. Obviously Peiser had a problem with this. Otherwise why would Solomon have written the article?
