Peiser makes invalid claims on scientific consensus
Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes. Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus. Peiser originally stated in January, 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science."

On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself. (Source: www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/) (Source: www.sciencemag.org/) (Source: www.abc.net.au/)

Research on climate change
According to an ISI search of publications Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Peiser and the "Scientific Alliance"
An advising member of the “Scientific Alliance,” an organization formed by a UK businessman who was fed up with "all this environmental stuff."

The Alliance describes itself as “a forum for addressing environmental problems based on sound science.” According to a July ‘01 article, the Scientific Alliance was set up by Robert Durward and a public relations firm called “Foresight Communications.”

Originally, Durward, owner of a rock quarry in the UK, formed the Alliance out of frustration over an aggregate tax being proposed for the quarry industry. On top of fighting the tax, the Alliance also provided “expert” scientific advice on subjects like transport, climate change and biodiversity. Durward described himself, “as a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff… much of it unjustified, such as the climate change levy.” At the time of the Alliance’s formation, Durward refused to disclose who the financial backers of the project were.

In December 2004, the Scientific Alliance teamed up with ExxonMobil funded George C. Marshall Institute to produce a paper titled "Climate Issues and Questions."

In January 2005, the Scientific Alliance held a half-day seminar on the "alarmism" around the issue of climate change. Speakers included Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen.

Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"
On October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." (Source: www.abc.net.au/)