I'm watching Al Gores 'An inconvenient truth'

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
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And since that set of 34 objections is the "criticisms" Wikipedia mentions being withdrawn...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 that 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The fact that Peiser has new criticisms doesn't mean the old ones weren't withdrawn.  Wikipedia didn't say he no longer had criticisms, just that the ones mentioned in the article were withdrawn.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.

I stil disagree with the above contention that he withdrew all 34 articles...  Those articles are still largely there though he does think some do not fit after going over it.  He withdrew some of those articles after going over them closley... but still maintains that some of them do go against her conclusion... however he adds the criticism that her search was flawed as was her methods.

An analgous situation would be you saying you couldn't find any easter eggs in the backyard... and therefore claiming none were there.

Me going out there and saying I found some Blue Eggs and therefore i think your search was flawed.
Then you saying you weren't counting Blue Eggs.
Are you vindicated in this situation?  Why no.  Instead of one problem i've come across two.

I was wrong in my claim that according to your criteria you found no articles since you didn't look for blue eggs. (Understandable since you never stated you weren't looking for blue eggs.)

However that doesn't mean the Blue Eggs aren't there nor that you were vindicated.

Furthermore Solomon comes along.  Notices that it says you were right and vindicated, and i was wrong... calls me... and I mention the blue eggs and the fact that your search was wrong and ommitted it.

He tries to fix this and can't... and is very wrong... and writes an article about it.   One with a little too much emotion behind it sure... but still factually true.

Not only was wikipedia wrong... but they were blatantly cherrypicking.
Not only that but they eliminated the rest of the data in context.
Much how Media Watch blatantly cherrypicked that statment Peiser made which made it sound like he thought nobody doubted global warming.

Which is something you have yet to address.

You state you'd think they would get in trouble if they lied or misrepresented something... yet they already have by cherrypicking his last statement to represent him as saying something else.

First, the 34 articles: 
MW:  It implies that ... the 34 articles you found ... may not have been included in the 928 articles .... Is this possible?
BP:  Yes, that is indeed the case. ... 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 says "yes, and also some of them are too ambiguous anyway."  To me, it makes little sense that he'd say "some" in the second part and not the first if he really meant "some" in both cases.  Why do you think this is the case? 

Second, I think a much better analogy would be if I couldn't find easter eggs that were in the woods on my property but not what I would think of as the "backyard" (i.e. grassy area on my property); or easter eggs that were in the FRONT yard.  Or maybe, most charitably, ROBIN's eggs in the backyard. 

AFAIK Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers ("..published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,..") disagreed with the consensus position."  So if Peiser comes along and throws in some non-peer-reviewed stuff that he says disagrees, I don't know what's so wrong about saying it doesn't count against the study.  I thought that peer reviewed papers were the real meat and potatoes of scientific discourse? 

(Side note:  I believe I've found "the consensus position":  "[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".)

Next up, Solomon.  He says Peiser "had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right."  Either this is referring to the 34 articles, which admittedly you and I disagree on as of your last post, or he is referring to Peiser conceding a more general position which no one at all has even alluded to. 

As for cherrypicking, I'll have to ask you to pick a horse.  Did Wikipedia cherrypick the Media Watch report, or did Media Watch cherrypick with Wikipedia the semi-innocent bystander?  Unless ... what do you say Wikipedia cherrypicked aside from the Media Watch report?  The web is getting a little tangled here. 

MW's article says "There will never be absolute agreement."  The main difference between their quote and the expanded version is a blurb about how active the small community of dissenters is. 

Keep in mind that the article isn't actually about Peiser but Bolt, who was relying on Peiser's set of 34 objections as if no retraction of any kind was ever made.  It would have been better if they'd kept the following sentence ("However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.")

But as to your final statement, the cherrypicking you point out is different from libel and fabricating interview statements wholecloth.  Their asses would have been sued so hard. 

Why?  She still hasn't released her criteria.  Pesier is doing it on good will so far since her setudy can't be replicated.  The number of articles she said she reviewed is higher then the results you can get by replicating can be reproduced.  We still don't know what her actual critera was. There is still no way to replicate her study because she isn't releasing her methods... or she falsefied her data by 3 articles which would be stupid.

Because she didn't use all peer reviewed things.  Gotta go so i'll expand on this later.

As for her was cherrypicking.  It was both.  You have Mediawatch who ignored the fact that he withdrew his objections was simply because her research method had even more flaws then one could of reasonably expected... and Wikipedia when they blocked out a valid change that eaisly could of been fact checked simply because they didn't want "His crap" to be in there.

It's not a case that they "Took it from mediawatch" and kept it that way.

It's a case of "They took it from mediawatch, people proved he still had problems, yet they claimed it was right."

Found this: 
"1.  Oreskes excluded the "Social Sciences Citation Index" and the "Arts & Humanities Citation Index", Peiser does not.
"2.  Oreskes set the search limits to include only "Article"s, whereas Peiser set the search limits to include "All document types".
"Using Oreskes search you get 929 documents (her article says 928, close enough?), where as with Peiser's search you get 1247 documents.
"Among Peiser's 34 articles, 2 are clearly opposed to the consensus position:
"1.  Linden HR, "The evolution of an energy contrarian", Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 21: 31-67 1996
"2.  Gerhard LC, Hanson BM, "Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report", AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000
"With Peisers search, the first article (categorized as "Editorial Material"), is included, but not included in Oreskes search.
"The second article appears in both searches. Is this the missing article from the 929/928 documents?"

Looks like Peiser might actually have a beef with that one article (AAPG), as long as you're willing to count non-peer-reviewed stuff. 

Peiser's "good will" didn't extend as far as asking her what search criteria she used before releasing this criticism that ASSUMED she was an idiot instead of that Peiser didn't do it right. 

Where did Solomon "prove" anything?  He said that Peiser's findings "discredited" Oreskes'.  He substantiated this by putting in crap like "depending on the standard met" for what should count, and "Oreskes had made her claims based on a subset of articles" meaning 'peer reviewed ones' and 'actual articles as opposed to editorials etc.'.  If you can show that Oreskes ignored peer reviewed articles that should reasonably be counted, that will mean YOU could have a beef if Wikipedia reverted your edits, but Solomon was just not doing a good edit.  Wikipedia threw out the baby with the bath water, and Petersen (the editor) was being a jerk about it, but that's how it goes. 

Solomon did not get Peiser to refute what Media Watch said.  This is key.