You mean "Professor Lindzen who is is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)"
(
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) ?
There are many papers, as I listed. I guess that if the "climate" for dissenting scientist were more friendly you could find more, as you do in chinese and russian P.R. magazines.
I can compile a lists of first class meteorologists and climate scientists who dissent about AGW but I'm pretty sure that it would be ignored as usual and it can be seem as an appeal to autority, so what's the point?
And about the social scentist Oreskes, I'd rather look at Benny Peiser.
There really isn’t many anti-AGW appearing in peer reviewed literature. Anyone who scans the major peer review journals will easily note the lack of anti-AGW papers. Lindzen is actually a good example, but not in the way you think. He hasn’t published on climate change in a peer review journal in over a decade.
Oreskes-2004 In a paper itself published in Science she reviewed 10 years of papers published in Science with the words “climate change” of the 928 papers not one was anti-AGW while 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view that climate change was occurring and was caused by humans. Peer review came up with a handful of papers which may have vaguely been ant-AGW, but this still pales in comparison to the 100s on the other side.
In other words the peer review literatrue is very hevily weighted to one side in this debate. Hence the claim "our work is being surpressed" but how often have we hears that from people peddling fake science?
