Nobody said it did, but Oreskes' essay falls exactly into this category too.

No, it doesn't. Ms. Oreskes' 'essay' is clearly labeled as 'essay' and is published in a highly respected science periodical by a highly respected American scientific organization.

I'll repeat the link, because it didn't render, and then I'll quote it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Notice this 'essay' is published in a column in Science Magazine called 'Essays on Science and Society'.

"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."

"Others agree."

"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested."

"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility,"

So the big question now is, when will Tom Brosz and Lord Monckton show some humility, and even more pressing, when will they read up on scientific methods?

You are keeping up to the extent of knowing that abstract analysis is what we've been talking about, right?

I have no idea what you are talking about, because when compared to the evidence of wiki and real science, it's obvious you're just an illucid crackpot.

Under the circumstances, I kind of like the irony of you using Wikipedia as a primary source.

But you are unable to point out exactly where in all the wiki links I posted where any of the content was 'ironic'. Because you can't. Because wiki is the defacto standard for rock solid information content nowadays. You still have some obsolete and disinformed idea of what wiki is, and how it really works. Just as you have some sort of obsolete and disinformed idea on what science is and how it works, and what scientific methods are and how they work, and what planetary science is and how it works. In short, Tom Brosz, you are a crackpot.

I have no idea who Peiser is, but I know where to find out :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser

Ah. That Benny Peiser.