Also in Peiser's email to Mediawatch, he says that "it is indeed the case" that "the 34 articles (he) 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" but were in the 1247 documents of Peiser's list (what an amazing coincidence). i.e. he accepts that the 34 articles were not on Orekes' list, just his larger list which is why he says "Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism". i.e. he withdraws his "reject or doubt" claim for any abstract on Orekes' list and claims it just applies to some additional papers not on her list but on his list.

Mediawatch said that when asked to provide the names of the articles (on his list and not on Oreskes' list BTW), he provided just one which was from a biased organization and was not scientifically peer-reviewed.

When you stand by your claim like that, it's hardly worth bothering to tell anyone you're withdrawing it.

Anyway, when Bolt says:

"(Peiser) found (that) of those 928 papers, 34 rejected or doubted man-made global warming."

he's dead wrong because by Peiser's own written admission, those 34 or whatever wishy-washy number it is, are not on Orekes' list "of those 928 papers" but are on Peiser's list of 1247 documents that he expects us to trust.

Chris and Tim, do you concede that Peiser does not concede or are you just going to keep on going around the mulberry bush repeating and repeating ad nauseum the same stuff? Either he concedes or he doesn't. It is immaterial whether you think he is wrong when it comes to the issue of his conceding. To say he concedes, when you know he doesn't, is not only "deeply dishonest", but blatantly so.

Tim, my editorial entry does mention my "insiders" role, what do you think an involvement in politics is, so I have no idea what you are going on about. Not only that but the Internet is full of references to my Liberal Party affiliations, most from me!

The more you try to make an issue of something which has nothing to do with the argument, the more it looks to me like you have a particular point of view which you are trying to prosecute rather than genuinely being interested in the science. It's quite common for activists to have political agendas, and it looks to me like you're one of those. The fact that you won't answer any questions about affiliations or motivations gives further basis for suspicion, as does your willingness to sacrifice logic in order to try to "win" an argument.

As for surveys - well we know that asking scientists what they think yields the fact that there is a substantial body of opinion that disputes major parts of the AGW thesis. We also know that there are refereed articles that dispute the consensus, as well as substantial criticism of the way refereeing works (essentially mates reviewing mates in a lot of cases). The whole concentration on Oreskes' study is to try to blur these facts; and the whole concentration on refereeing is to blur the fact that what we are dealing with in the AGW debate is scientific opinion, not science, as none of the models' forecasts can be empirically tested before the event.

Well said Chris!

Further response to GrahamY:
Good to get an insight into your thinking: We should ignore the part of the abstract which discusses anthropological influences, because you have found the word “may” in another sentence.

Nevertheless, let’s respond in good faith, so I can reiterate the theme running through all my posts – exploitation of the scientific method and scientific scepticism to generate doubt in the wider community.

Science is about disproof. It would be unusual for a scientific abstract to say “X is proven”, because that’s not science. A scientific consensus is not about proof. It is about a theory that is well tested and not disproved. Scientific scepticism isn’t an expression of doubt in a theory.

“All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

Read a scientific abstract as though it were a legal prosecution or political article and you “may” find yourself confused. OR would you prefer “will be confusing”.

You have hit upon the word “may”, as though that shows doubt. It does not. Notice how other scientists have used the word “may” in other abstracts. Every abstract concludes weakly with verbs such as “may”, “could be”, “is likely” or “is characterised”. This is an expression of the scientific principle just explained.

Within its own domain, scientific expression is well understood and Naomi Oreskes sets up her review of abstracts appropriately. An abstract saying anything like “global warming could be due primarily to non-anthropological causes” or “climate change is characterised by natural variability” was not found.

Of course, the disinterest science has for proof may be exploited for general consumption. Part of Pieser’s duplicity is to demand explicit causation when science works in terms of disproof. Until you acknowledge the scientific method, you’ll find it easy to believe the sweet but poisonous words of those who would like the general community to ignore the warnings science has objectively provided.

Happy to explain further if requested.

David Latimer:
"Today's debate is how to find the best solution. Carbon Trading? Sequestration? Base Loads? Nuclear Power? Economic side-effects? Solar Cities? Developing Nations? Public Transport? Demand Management? Green Power? .... and many more areas."

It's encouraging to see someone focus on the bigger picture occasionally.

… Hmmm. How about "reducing consumption" (and by implication reducing production)?
Or is this blasphemy? Perhaps someone can provide the PC weasel words.

As pointed out in a more recent article in OLO ("A buck-per-tonne is too cheap for our most precious resource"), our water is worth more than most pay for it.
I'd humbly suggest that our forests, our coal, our natural gas and our iron ore are worth considerably more than our trading partners are paying for it - on several levels (not least, the cost to future generations).

Why are current Western governments so obsessed with "productivity"?
Quite simply, it's a displacement activity driven by infatuation with market economics.
[Why are politicians exempt from productivity clauses and "market forces"? <sorry: rhetorical>]
The employment mantra may well satisfy that irrational beast "the market"; in reality it's just expanding the underclass of working poor and encouraging _all of us_ to over-consume, working ridiculous hours while bloating government revenues.

Where are the studies showing our society better off as a consequence of upgrading vehicles, computers, TVs every three or four years?
With Australian manufacturing in its death throes, and agriculture struggling against dumped produce, how much waste and pollution is generated by imports? (My local 'fresh food' supermarket sells stale Italian garlic for about $6 a kilo.)

Further, how much of the world's resources are wasted on military adventurism?
In turn, how much has warfare contributed to BOTH global warming and commodity shortages?
Imagine what we could do if this money were invested in education, housing, health! (Not just here or the US, but in "enemy" societies.)

From the "user pays" perspective, it might be more appropriate if we were taxed (non-deductibly) on our individual environmental footprints.

Cherry-pick all you like.
We're on the Titantic, somewhere mid-Atlantic, and people are throwing deckchairs.

Col Rouge you are not a skeptic you are a Goose. Please remember that.
Graham Y, you set up Online Opinion to assist you with message framing. You like to see the arguements against your nasty Liberal mates agendas, therefore enabling you to put a nice spin on it. Some times you write some absolute crap. Your article on the Queensland seat of Gaven is one such article that springs to mind.
Given that you were so wrong in that matter(proven at the Sept 9 Qulnd. Election) i have no confidence in your opinions on Global warming. At least you do appear to have some practice and experience in Political matters. You have none on enviromental issues.Niether do i. I dont know Lattimer, but his article has good support.Your intervention in this matter is curious to say the least. Accusing Lattimer of a political agenda is hilarious. This whole website has a political agenda.

GrahamY:

Here's what Media Watch reported:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

"And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one."

And yet you write: "To say he concedes, when you know he doesn't, is not only "deeply dishonest", but blatantly so"

Peiser conceded that there was only abstract that disputed the consensus. Why you continue to deny this is beyond me.

Yet again you have evaded my question. How come the page about the editors of OLO does not mention your Liberal Party insider role? It seems to have been carefully written to avoid mentioning your Liberal Party connections. I'll be happy to answer your questions about my motivations when you answer my question.

Here's the page again: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=staff

And no, we don't know that surveys of scientists yields the "fact" that there is substantial dispute with the consensus. If want to make such a claim you need to cite some specific surveys.