"Peiser doesn't admit only 1 out of 928, as his response to my email indicates."

Well he wouldn't want to, would he? Conspicuous by its absence in the email is any mention of what the figure out of 928 should be. Peiser retreated to safer ground and only mentioned his opinion result: ""75% [of all papers] fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view" is certainly wrong". Peiser said nothing significant in that email about the Oreskes' claim that Gore repeated, other than a bare-faced and wrong assertion that it's "not backed up by the sample of abstracts she used".

"In any event, I found one in 1994 which disputes the "consensus", and you ignore it."

Just because Hulme and Jones point out that certain information is not sufficient on its own to prove AGW does not mean they are saying that such information does not exist anywhere else.

Opinionated2,
"We live in an enclosed little world and the more we pollute the more we put our futures at risk. Perhaps the people who don't understand the effects of pollutants on the planet are also those that pee in public pools... I wonder?"

Hey. It was only that once and it wasn't my fault. It was the warm beer.
It's not like I did it in the shallow end.

Perseus,

It generally considered good form to provide a reference when making a criticsm. This helps your readers ascertain what you are on about. However, I found the report on ocean acidity that (I think) you are refering to (in PDF):

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249

I don't think your criticsm has much merit. On page 10 for example:

"However mixing and advection (vertical motions, sinking and upwelling) with the intermediate and deep waters of the oceans (down to about 1000 m and 4000 m respectively) is much slower, and takes place on timescales of several hundred years or more... Owing to this slow mixing process most of the carbon stored in the upper waters of the oceans will be retained there for a long time. This makes the impacts in the surface waters greater than if the CO2absorbed from the atmosphere was spread uniformly to all depths of the oceans "

page 17:

" When averaged for the oceans globally, about 30% of the anthropogenic CO2is found at depths shallower than 200 m, with 50% at depths less than 400 m, leading to the conclusion that most of the CO2 that has entered the oceans as a result of human activity still resides in relatively shallow waters.

You also neglect that the production of carbonic acid is an equilibrium reaction, and is likely to favour the production of CO2 bubbles at higher pressures (ie. in the deep ocean)

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169

However, despite this, the turkeys at the Royal Society took mixing between shallow and deep ocean into acount. Page 17:

"A more detailed analysis of projected pH changes has been done using an ocean general-circulation model...
The initial changes in the surface ocean pH are rapid, but as CO2continues to be absorbed from the atmosphere it is slowly transferred to the deep oceans (including ocean sediments) by mixing and through the biological pump, with subsequent changes in pH."

The report claims that reduction of the surface ocean pH of 0.1 units has already occured over the last 200 years, at a rate 100 times faster than has occured in a hundred thousand years.

GrahamY, you claim: "Peiser doesn't admit only 1 out of 928, as his response to my email indicates."

You are wrong. Peiser conceded to Media Watch that there was only one. You refused to believe them and that's why you emailed him. He confirmed that he had retracted that part of his criticism:

"I have indeed retracted part of my criticism of the Oreskes study. I made a methodological mistake in my initial analysis of her abstracts and have conceded that much."

I am amazed that you continue to deny something so plainly true. Here's a challenge for you: if Peiser now maintains that there is more than one, what are the other ones?

I did not ignore your claim to have found a 1994 article that disputed the consensus. Here's what I wrote: "Hulme and Jones is not skeptical of the consensus. Peiser didn't even include it in his original list of 34 abstracts." Feel free to email Mike Hulme and see what he thinks.

It nice to see you finally admit that Bolt was wrong on a number of points. It says something about your bias that you boast that you would reject an article that details some of Bolt's errors.

And how come the page about the editors of OLO does not mention your Liberal Party insider role? You are trying to pretend to be objective when you are not. You yourself admitted to Marohasy that OLO publishes more articles against the scientific consensus.

David Latimer: "I care that the truth is being smeared. Does anyone else?"

“Smokescreen” – a perfect word reflecting practice at diplomatic level also a steady notion that diplomacy needs human skills rather then applied knowledge, is terribly wrong.

Especially, while participants are short of any technical practical skills relevant to this topic but play English only, little abilities to generalize issues at all.

That is why I undisputedly support your notion mentioned above, bearing in mind that OWN production "smeared" lesser to producers.

Tim, you say the science in the critique is badly wrong. Then provide a link to a blog that says the science is badly wrong. Your point? My comment, however, was about the references to peer review in the critique. Do you have any comment on the difficulties independents have had in accessing data sets and methodologies in order to analyse or replicate findings, or on comments such as Mann's that he would not be "intimidated" into providing such, even to those who fund the research? There may be science that is wrong. But then there is just bad science.