She can't defend against the criticism that convenience samples don't allow inferences about a population 
 
I think she is claiming that college going population is a statistically valid subset of the entire population at that age, and not a convenience sample. Given how large it is, it is hard to disagree. In fact, she said that the majority of the published pychological and sociologicl literatire would have to be abandonded if we started to assume differently now. 
 
You like to boldify stuff but it doesnt really imprees 
 
off the beaten path of correlational and experimental work 
 
to 
 
he territory of estimating population parameters and tracking them over time 
 
These are your particular bug bears. Why wouldnt the pyschological literature measure differences in population over time ( and also be corrrlational and experimental, at the same time? ) 
 
The original piece you wrote "contradicted" these findings with anecdotes. We only see girls go wild during ovulation ( not proven, not universal, and doesnt explain why everybody ovulates at spring break) and a friend of yours posts sexier photos on facebook only when ovulating. That's a lovely anecdote. But it is not a statistic ( and needless to say doesnt explain differences in intergenerational behaviour - since women have always ovulated). 
 
You did admit this was anecdotal, but it is worse than that. Irrelevant.

"Of course it does -- and that is what the Iraq War was/is, "blood" (war) for oil..." 
 
See I would have thought that Saddam would have been willing to sell the oil anyway, were he allowed to.