The proof is in the article you posted.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

You can see the source Mediawatch used and how they misquoted him.

Also... for giggles.  The whole quote from what mediawatch cherry picked.

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.
Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i-detect-first-tiny-rumblings-of.html)
Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

As you see in the source. None of mediawatches claimes are actually there.

Seems like someone should be watching mediawatch.

No.  Here's my interpretation: 

In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims.
Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.
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.
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
^ THIS IS THE QUOTE FROM THE PDF. 
So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...
Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
^ THIS IS FROM ANOTHER EMAIL ENTIRELY
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000)
Peiser says he withdrew his criticism in March this year. 

Okay?  Now if you could come up with some evidence that he only admits to the content of the first email and not the others, then you'd have something. 

On his website, a short perusal does not reveal updates of any sort to the figure. 
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

Maybe he invests in companies that support his goals of reducing global warming. And unfortunately making him rich

And where is this second email?  The first is availble but the second isn't?

When talked to by Solomon... as seen in the pervious article I posted.  He claims the wikipedia entry is false.

"Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia 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.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing."

Correct.  I don't pretend to know why they didn't include that email as well.  [edit:  You'll notice that the other quotes, the ones that CAN be found in the PDF, have the link by them, while the one that can't doesn't.]

Why should we give that guy any more, or even equal, credence with Media Watch?  In fact, look at the question that guy asked.  'Did you concede that Oreskes was right?'*  That is a completely different thing from what Media Watch says.  And glancing at the edit history in wikipedia it looks like the "conceding" as indeed that he backed down to the one article, and not conceding his disputation entirely MUCH LESS that Oreskes was "right".  So Media Watch and Peiser can both be perfectly compatible if we only conclude that Summers asked Peiser the wrong question.  I'll check the Wikipedia history more thoroughly later.

[edit:  Exact quote:  "Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia 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.

["I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing."]

[edit2:  After checking through what I think is all the relevant edits, the only thing I spotted that even remotely resembled an allegation that Peiser conceded that Oreskes was right was an 'edit remark' where the editor said something like "he admitted he was wrong", not specifying whether it was his position or his critique (albeit in neither case is that completely accurate).  In any case no such claim was ever in the Wikipedia article that I saw.]

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?

How could he check for the information without reading what actually says?

That explination is really grasping for straws... and quite honestly pretty intellectually dishonest.

Assuming i have your expination correct which is "Peiser looked for what Solomon wrote, uet nothing else to see whether he actually agreed with what was presented there or not."

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.