Bolt struck by Media Watch

What do you do when a powerful opinion journalist with his own blog, like Andrew Bolt opines about something you really know about, but he won't let his commenters post links to the facts that, by any honest reading, renders the big journo's opinion wrong?

Well, if you have your own blog you can post your rebuttal complete with link. The little guy doesn't have to stay censored on the Net:

I can't believe the first 12 fawning commenter rallying around you Andrew. They're loyal but, like you, they don't read your research - even when it's your first link.

You say in you latest blog post linked above, "Let me summarise. Objection one: Benny Peiser, whom I cited, has allegedly confessed to some vague error in his survey disproving claims that scientists were unanimous that man was behind global warming. "

Andrew, you're spinning it when you characterise Peiser's 'confession' as vague. The following from Media Watch seems pretty stark and clear, and I note you didn't counter it: "Dr Peiser has advised Media Watch he did not study the same sample of articles as Professor Oreskes, in other words, he did not ?check again?."

Rather you complained, "You have given me just 10 minutes to respond to a claim about Peiser of which I knew nothing."

Well, I remember letting you know that I had posted a rebuttal to your claims about Peiser. I wish you had read it because it shows that the research - and truth is out there and easy to access if you ask the question - and you could have published that retraction.
Link {Note to reader: Only after removing the link can I submit my post for Andrew's moderation when commenting. He has purposefully censored himself from contradicting facts}

You write, "Unable to check for myself what you claim Peiser now says to you, given I am already late for my duties at the school fete, I must simply pass on to you the result of his own review of the scientific literature. See the abstracts he uncovered here."

I followed that link, and to my surprise I found your research source was exactly the same source I used for my rebuttal. Amazing hey? Amazing how you could have missed Meyrick's point that:

"Meyrick Says:
May 9th, 2005 at 3:56 am

So to summarize, Dr Peiser has made 4 errors in his research:

1. Dr Peiser failed to replicate Dr Oreskes search properly. Dr Oreskes used (as far as I can tell) the following criteria:"
{snip: both links above carry Meyrick's complete summary}

So I hope you can now agree that Peiser's research is rubbish. And as it was the pivotal premise for your next nine points, ie, that the scientific consensus does not exist, that they are same.

The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming rides on - unchallenged by peers. Just the FUD Squad you run with. For what? If it's to pay your kids bills, then ask yourself how they are going to pay their kids bills? It's not for good science, nor good journalism.

If it's for ideology then you shouldn't accuse others of the same. It would only be fair minded and unbiased if you published a retraction. Lead by example and show the ABC how you expect them to behave.

Whether you do or not, you should really should come to grips with the notion of "peer-review".

Other Blogs on: Global Warning Climate Change climate+change+skeptic Science CO2 Andrew Bolt Media Watch