I am not sold on Rohl’s basic theories, or Ahmed Osmond’s for that matter, but I do keep my mind open. I am not aware that Rohl ‘can’t abide mention of these things’. My impression from reading his books - quite a few years ago - is that he just has a differing view of the Sothic Dating business, so not so much not ‘abiding’ but not ‘agreeing’ with what he called the Consensus view.I wonder what you consider a "trained Egyptologist". As far as I know, Rohl has no PhD. I once read he had an MA--but that can be obtained in a year in the UK. I know of someone who did. Anyway, here's the Wiki article on his background.
David Rohl - Wikipedia
Not that it really matters. Even a former rock musician could come up with a good theory. The thing is--Rohl's "New Chronology" can't hold up. This is known because certain things that are mentioned in some texts depend on it being the correct season. The Civil Calendar of ancient Egypt wandered through the naturally occurring seasons but it's possible to get a concordance from these texts. Even during the time of Thutmose III, the calendar was nearly in sync with the natural season. By the time of Akhenaten it was even more so because a new Sothic Cycle was about to begin--and this only happened every 1,460 years--when the rising of Sothis occurred on the first day of the first month of Akhet, in what was termed "a perfect year". Rohl can't abide mention of these things because they make a mess of his radical time line. He wants to be free to put anybody wherever he pleases but he is restricted by such things as Thutmose III having to be in Canaan in the early spring--or else--in the month of I Smw because that is when the winter wheat ripened there. That is really what the young pharaoh was after--food. Not forgetting that the Civil Calendar wanders though the seasons, on some dates I Smw could be in the winter.