Yes: Guettarda hit the nail on the head. The Oregon Petition was just puffery - it's vacuous. If you want to claim there is a substantial minority of scientists still opposing AGW, somebody needs to come up with some peer-reviewed publications where they are saying this, rather than just petitions or sound bites in polarized media and websites. I have access to the full text of a lot of the journals through our university library system, and I regularly collect cites for bio pages of people we discuss here. (Anyone can check for article titles using scholar.google.com even if you don't have full text access to the journals.) 
 :::This page includes a few scientists with serious publishing track records; they are the ones who need to be taken seriously in the debate. Many other proposed names have come up blank, or with no work that has any bearing on questions about (A)GW. If you know of more who have published in scientific journals on this subject, propose them for addition to this list. But this is where you run up against Oreskes' result: it's hard to find such articles. Do you see the significance of that?