"But Baggytrousers - to the layperson who reads the papers, these 10,000 or so peer-reviewed papers amount to a hill of beans when the theory behind them is used in the numerous climate projections which are all deviating from the observed temperature measurements."
I assume that is the heavily overloaded, backlogged and arguably failing peer-review process of science you are talking about? Many papers these days barely get read, let alone re-studied or effectively reviewed! There is simply too much "science" being produced to keep up effectiveness of the old system of peer-review!
