To go line to line
"Her study did not specify that she had limited her search to "articles" rather than "all document types." This omission led to much subsequent confusion. "
True.
"Oreskes' conclusions were directly [[global warming controversy|challenged]] by [[Benny Peiser]], a social anthropologist who repeated her search, but specifying "all document types." This led to a different result than obtained by Oreskes, and one that discredited her finding. "
You can argue that "One that discredited her findings" could be removed... but that's about it.
"Peiser found that numerous articles -- as many as 34 articles, depending on the standard met -- rejected Oreskes claims. When he later discovered that Oreskes had made her claims based on a subset of articles, Peiser repeated the search and found other problems with Oreskes study. Chiefly, he found that Oreskes has no basis whatever for her findings as the entire ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicity endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' Moreover, he found that the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change. "
Once again true. At most you could argue that "No basis" is a bit harsh and should be replaced with something like "He found that less then 2% explicity endorse the consensus view(13 atrciles) and deemed that far to small a subject sample.
Wikipedia does traditionally put up all controversy and discenting opinions and problems found with studies however. For example look at the way "Expelled" the Ben Stein movie was handled... another poorly done piece of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled#Claims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees
