(Background here, shorter version here.)
On May 12 at 4:26 p.m., Dr. Peiser wrote "I have analysed the same set of abstracts" as Dr. Oreskes, in order to refute Oreskes' claim that the abstracts showed a consensus about global warming. As the first link above shows, Dr. Peiser knew by May 8 that he had not analyzed the same set of abstracts.
I discuss earlier today the third potential dishonest statement from Peiser printed in the Financial Post - it's clearly wrong, but it's not clear yet whether he knew that when he submitted the article.
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Peiser switches to saying something ridiculous like "I have analyzed virtually/substantially/basically the same set of abstracts." I consider that just as dishonest.