If I was, I could spend hours on research, working out my own charts, calling people for interviews, and having a jolly old time.

Doesn't it strike you as odd at ALL that someone could collect a thousand papers on climatology, and not find ONE that disagreed with the "consensus?"

I haven't found anything that actually lists the articles she surveyed.

What I find disturbing is that her short article, with no documentation on her data, has been cited as unassailable truth. Why? Because it was published in "Science?"

I can lay hands on a lot of articles and papers from scientists that dispute the IPCC summary, and other "consensus" issues. Some dispute only parts of the "consensus." Sure, there aren't as many. Does science work from majority rule, now?

Doesn't it bother you that her attitude is "we've SETTLED this. Now who the hell are you to ask questions?"

Go back and read that Telegraph article again. This is not one disgruntled scientist with sour grapes. This is a pattern of behavior. Right now, the subject is climate science, but believe me, it covers a lot of scientific fields. There's a "good old boy" network and a "not invented here" syndrome in more places than climatology. I speak as someone with some experience in the space field.

Doesn't it bother you that I cite a news story implying that only certain views were being published in some important scientific journals? And then the rebuttal is a list of papers from important scientific journals with the observation that no dissent can be found? Hello?