The original comment merely referred to "thousands of scientific articles". You've now said you'd be surprised if there were thousands of "independent" articles, or if there were thousands of "original" articles, without indicating what you mean by "independent" and "original" or why only thousands of "independent" or "original" articles are the right thing to look for.

If you're implying that the great majority of published climate science research is literally plagiarized, then that's an extraordinary claim and I'd like to see your extraordinary evidence.

But I'm guessing you mean something else -- e.g., that most papers (in that or any other field) aren't startlingly creative, or that most papers make some use of other earlier research rather than doing anything from scratch. In that case you owe us an explanation of why it's a problem.

Do you know of thousands of "independent", "original" articles supporting general relativity or the Standard Model or particle physics or evolution or, well, anything?

(I think "dependent", "unoriginal" work is vital, both for scientific progress and for providing evidence. Consider: One paper introduces a brilliant new idea and provides some experimental support for it. Ten other papers explore its theoretical consequence. Ten more report on experiments done using the ideas in the original paper and those ten successors, getting results consistent with the theory. If the research in those papers is sensibly chosen and competently done, we now have much more evidence for the original brilliant idea than after the first paper, even though that's the only "original" one.)