While the paper did pass peer-review, and while most reviewers agree the paper is interesting, it has nevertheless been criticized on the following grounds:
(1) The authors surveyed a professional association of geoscientists (APEGGA). Since many geoscientists work in the private sector, outside of universities, and commonly in the petroleum industry, critics allege that their perspectives are less significant, and the survey less representative, than surveys conducted exclusively among university researchers publishing in the field. And indeed, when using such surveys, certain papers have suggested that there is a 90+% consensus, that is, near-universal agreement with the IPCC position (e.g. Doran and Zimmerman: Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | EOS 2009). However, climate skeptics counter that university reseachers who want to get published cannot allow themselve be skeptical of the IPCC consensus and so therefore we cannot count on them to express their true opinions. And papers like Doran and Zimmerman 2009, which hold there to be a 90+% consensus among climate scientists, have themselves been criticized for poor methodology.
(2) The 1,077 climate scientists, geologists, and engineers surveyed were not drawn from all over the world and thus not a representative sample. On the contrary, the study was conducted in Alberta, Canada, which is also the home of the tar sands. Some critics speculate that the respondents would therefore be less favorable to the consensus view.