` ::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.`