I read the 33 (now 34) abstracts at the link, posted my comments there and here. Feel free to do likewise.

There are maybe a half-dozen abstracts out of 1100 that doubt the consensus, some of them questionable as to whether they should be included (e.g., a near-retired energy expert with no climatology expertise telling his life story and mentioning he doubts global warming). Peiser changed the study so it's not clear whether these abstracts were in Oreskes' study. It would be interesting to see what she thinks of the doubters.

So far, I think consensus is an accurate term, and Peiser's credibility has been shaken far more than Oreskes'.