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