Most of those 34 papers say either "no warming measurable in my region" or "technique X not useful for measuring AGW", but neither, by itself, doubts the consensus.

Two exceptions: one of the papers said "polar ice sheet thinning considered a sign of AGW, and we didn't find it." I classify that as doubting both because of what the author is implying and because of the general belief that arctic warming is one of the strongest indicators of AGW. So Peiser's got one article.

Second would be a trend: if most regions weren't showing warming, and most techniques were shown useless, then the cumulative effect would imply doubt. Peiser hasn't attempted to show that.

Skeptics create a straw man by claiming the consensus position is "everything's known to a certainty." These papers are examining the edges of uncertainty, and I doubt the authors would classify themselves as skeptics.