I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:
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Indeed, the now withdrawn criticisms serve as an example of what she refers to in her article as the media debate over climate change, which stands in contrast to the scientific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.

So ... first he says
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.
that ALL 34 aren't in her 928 sample. 

Then he says
I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view.
So according to him he apparently missed a few the first time?  Or is "the consensus view" different from the earlier view? 

Anyway, the passage you bolded does not indicate that Solomon's quote was correct (it says nothing about him "conceding she was right", only withdrawing his objections (without necessarily admitting that other objections don't exist).)  And certainly the original 34 objections (which he indeed withdrew according to his email) did make a media splash around her study.  Peiser, by the way, IIRC, talks about there being a "majority consensus" but not a "unanimous consensus".

Well of course.  One would have to be stupid to not think there was a mjority consensus.
However the Wikipedia article was still wrong do you deny this?
It was wrong, it tried to be corrected.. and was switched back because of an agenda.
It's just like when Microsoft got busted because they had people changing wikipedia stuff from their offices. (I think that was MS.)

Going by what I see as a full retraction of his original 34 objections...
And since that set of 34 objections is the "criticisms" Wikipedia mentions being withdrawn...
Wikipedia was technically correct.  Which is more correct than Solomon was. 

The fact that Peiser has new criticisms doesn't mean the old ones weren't withdrawn.  Wikipedia didn't say he no longer had criticisms, just that the ones mentioned in the article were withdrawn. 

Still, I would say they overreached with that last paragraph.  And it also sounds like cheerleading.