Repeatedly stating Peiser claims this admits that whereas using terms which implicitly agree in relation to Oreskes she showed demonstrated etc doesn t correspond with your stated goals above Also you keep deleting the heart of Peiser s rebuttal statement which is that a steady stream of new research papers rebuts Oreskes claim of consensus while loading it up with Coat Rack language such as Peisers statement on AGW This isn t a global warming article the issue here is Peiser s view on the state of consensus or lack thereof in the scientific community not the actual causes of warming