I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

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.

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 Indeed, the now withdrawn criticisms serve as an example of what she refers to in her article as the media debate over climate change, which stands in contrast to the scientific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.

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?

It says she was vindicated and he withdrew his criticism.  Which he did not.  He still has criticism with her study.

I stupidly thought it was an edit comment, since it was set off from the main body of text. 

Still, Peiser did say in the Media Watch email: 
> It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities
> are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles
> randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?
Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). 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.

So he has conceded that all 34 articles were not even in Oreskes' study.  (As far as I can tell; am I wrong?) 

Although in the interest of full disclosure it continues,
> If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.
Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

So he maintains that his non-peer-reviewed etc. articles still show that support is not unanimous and thereby undercut that general assertion (if indeed Oreskes made it).  But as for the soundness of the study itself, as far as it goes, hasn't he completely withdrawn his assertions that it is factually incorrect as to the number of articles within the study that disagree (zero)?  He continues (apparently) to criticize the significance of the study but not the accuracy of it as far as I can tell. 

As for Solomon, the man was clearly on a rant.  He was mad because HE was getting butthurt by Wikipedian rejection.