According to your Wiki link:
"Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms."

Here is that letter:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

In the letter Peiser says:
"Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 - 2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed
928 abstracts.
I have listed *all* abstracts in question on my website at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm
"

You see, in the era of the internet it's quite possible to provide such documentation.

It should noted that Oreskes did not.

Meanwhile, regarding the specific point at wiki:

"> do you know whether the 928 articles she studied were included in the
1117 articles you studied?

Yes
...

> It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found
that "reject or doubt the view that human activities
> are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years"
may not have been included in the 928 articles
> randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

"Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."

> If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. "
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf