They refuse to publish contrary papers, so it's hardly suprising you won't find any in scientific journals. There are several stories on the phenomenon, but here's one that was handy:

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' - Telegraph

I love how the telegraph displays it's bias by inseting the picture of the scientist in a picture of a power plant. Painfully obvious.

"The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
advertisement

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly."

As for you consensus, the IPCC scientists can't even agree.

JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher

"The responses to the survey’s first four questions were predictable -- 83% to 90% of the respondents favored the view that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are driving global climate to unprecedentedly warmer temperatures and that limiting manmade CO2 emissions would reduce such climate change.

The responses to the last two questions, however, raise questions about the consensus’ credibility.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius -- twice the level of warming occurring during the 20th century -- is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others, or too difficult to assess.

Only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

But if there’s no agreement on whether a target climate even exists, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming?

Other notable results include the 20% who bizarrely said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change. So was climate a static phenomenon before the arrival of man? And if there was natural climate change before man, why not now also? And 44% percent don’t think that current global climate is unprecedentedly warm.

The survey indicates that when asked routine questions about the role of manmade CO2, the IPCC-ers respond in the Pavlovian fashion seemingly demanded of them by the global warming establishment. But when asked questions off the usual script, the supposed consensus falls apart.

Don’t forget that many scientists don’t participate in the IPCC because they perceive it as biased. The Pasteur Institute’s Dr. Paul Reiter, for example, resigned from the IPCC because he and a colleague found themselves “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.” There’s also the Petition Project, where 19,000 scientists have endorsed a statement questioning the scientific basis of climate alarmism."

The IPCC "hockey stick" is proof that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been removed from their data-set.

World Climate Report » Tropical Seas Sink Hockey Stick

"The “Hockey Stick” curiously wipes out the “Medieval Warm Period” of 1,000 years ago and the “Little Ice Age” that began 450 years ago and ended around 1900. We are supposed to look at the blade of the stick and conclude that the warming of the past 100 years is completely unlike anything seen for at least 1,000 years. It comes as no surprise that the “Hockey Stick” is prominently presented in many of the documents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Defenders of the “Hockey Stick” make claims that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were confined to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and not felt throughout the rest of the world. This always seemed odd to us at World Climate Report given that variations of solar output seem to explain the higher temperatures 1,000 years ago and the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age."