Well for one your ignoring line 37.  Citing the link you yourself posted again.

I mean did you only read the Line 26 edit or something?

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

Besides, 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?

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  But as for the soundness of the study itself, as far as it goes, hasn't he completely withdrawn his assertions that it is factually incorrect as to the number of articles within the study that disagree (zero)?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.

Furthermore I find it hard to believe that drastic consequences would not have befallen Media Watch (or at least a retraction!) for completely falsifying parts of an interview and important facts/statements like that. Peiser obviously knows his way around the Internet with friends and supporters that do as well and I'm sure they would be happy to jump on such blatant libel if they found it.

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.

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".

Freud, he's the guy who thought everything was about penis envy right?

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.

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 you stated no critera and the eggs were there.  (I followed the most logical search method.  I can't see how i would be to blame in this situation.)

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.

Even if we went with your rosiest interpretation Wikipedia is guilty of intentionally misrepresentation, cherry picking and editing out valid changes to fix the situation.

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.