In what way does that validate her and prove that she was right... as Wikipedia claimed?
He withdrew some criticism. Not all he had which the article stated... which Solomon tried to correct.
Also.. once again in what you posted.
"I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view"
He concedes that there weren't 34. But that there were some that reject what she calls teh consensus view.
While Wikipedia claimed that no such articles exist.
Indeed, the now withdrawn criticisms serve as an example of what she refers to in her article as the media debate over climate change, which stands in contrast to the scientific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.
This is blatantly false.
Solomon was no doubt angry. The tone of his article shows that. However i'd be pretty mad too if i couldn't fix something in an encyclopedia that i knew was wrong.
Hell, you don't know how mad i get at school textbooks. The stuff they get wrong and nobody bothers to fix is astounding.
I mean the whole generalization peopel have on Frued for example is completly wrong. What he thought was largely different then anythign textbooks cover. Same with Maslow and many other psychologists.
Same with a lot of history.
