Nereid's comments are much more succinct than my own, but I do need to clarify - sorry.

There are three factual errors in the above passage:

1) The peaks in the angular power spectrum were not produced by inflation.
Yes and no – as you stated in clarification 3 – the location of the peaks is determined by inflation in WMAP cosmology. Peaks can be anywhere. Since there appears to be local contamination of unknown causality and magnitude who knows what is what?
2) The relative peak heights, shapes and positions exactly matched predictions and the general level of the anisotropy signal was within the limits of earlier predictions.
Just Barely correct. They are much closer in position and amplitude, to Tracy McGaugh’s predictions for MOND. The amplitude of the second peak was predicted to be MUCH greater, before the Balloon data proved otherwise. It was hastily redrawn with the new limits.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/
3) Dark Energy does not affect the peak heights whatsoever, only their location along the horizontal axis. They are located exactly where inflation predicted them to be.
Frankly I am not impressed with this prediction, because Dark Energy is a parameter that is not independently constrained. Any radiation spectrum is likely to have secondary peaks, so using ad hoc, independent, non-verifiable and unknown in the local universe parameters to tune the spectrum does not provide us with any scientific validity. This falls within the same scope as the probability that a psychic can predict a victim has a car key in his pocket, and the key has at least two ridges in it. If the peaks could have been successfully modeled before the balloon data, and without conjuring up new Dark Stuff, that would have been impressive. It didn't happen that way.