Dan commented on Climategate Dismissed.
I mean what I said, not what you said I meant.
Dissenting opinions have a greater barrier to publication not because of collusion by a majority, but because it is rather difficult to find publication-quality evidence for something that is simply untrue.
Yes, there can be some degree of censorship, but this idea that science as an institution is simply one giant echo-chamber is frankly only a point of view espoused by those outside of academia (and by this I mean, those who have not practiced genuine research and had to make a proper investigation of a hypothesis for an audience of skeptics).
It is cavalier and disingenuous to simply characterize it as "majority vote".
Are you suggesting that the truth should be settled by one experiment and one paper, and whoever publishes first gets to decide reality?