A couple of items among many in favor of “Post-Normal Science”:

Hulme, Mike. “The appliance of science.” Opinion. The Guardian, March 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

Kunseler, Eva. “Towards a new paradigm of Science in scientific policy advising.” Nusap.net, October 15, 2007. http://www.nusap.net/article.php?sid=39

And three items among many not in favor of “Post-Normal Science”:

Bast, Joseph L. “What Climate Change Can Do For the Left.” American Thinker, July 17, 2009. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/what_climate_change_can_do_for.html

Bury, Elizabeth. “Climate Change and the Death of Science.” Opinion. Buy the Truth, October 31, 2009. http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

Carter, Bob. “Closing out dissent.” Scientific Blog. Quadrant Online – Blogs, August 1, 2010. http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/08/closing-out-dissent.

We have in recent years been inundated with propaganda to the effect that the hallmark of good science is peer review. This is nonsense; peer review is, as you imply, basically a convenience for journal editors; one would be as likely to find a peer-review process in place at a journal on, say, 17th century Portuguese literature as at one on invertebrate biology.

The real hallmark of scientific publication is complete openness and explicitness as to methods and data. This is why 18th and 19th century scientific journals were full of expensive, elaborate, and often quite beautiful illustrations of experimental apparatus: only with such detail can another scientist attempt replication of results and thus provide genuinely meaningful “peer review.”

That, as Dr. Jones has commented, such openness has not been characteristic of “climate science” in the last two decades provides a strong indication that whatever Jones, Mann, and company have been doing, it is definitely not science.

We have in recent years been inundated with propaganda to the effect that the hallmark of good science is peer review. This is nonsense; peer review is, as you imply, basically a convenience for journal editors; one would be as likely to find a peer-review process in place at a journal on, say, 17th century Portuguese literature as at one on invertebrate biology.

The real hallmark of scientific publication is complete openness and explicitness as to methods and data. This is why 18th and 19th century scientific journals were full of expensive, elaborate, and often quite beautiful illustrations of experimental apparatus: only with such detail can another scientist attempt replication of results and thus provide genuinely meaningful “peer review.”

That, as Dr. Jones has commented, such openness has not been characteristic of “climate science” in the last two decades provides a strong indication that whatever Jones, Mann, and company have been doing, it is definitely not science.

You are correct again, Sir.

Even on scientific politics that are not absurdly distorted by politics like AGW, nonetheless experts can reasonably differ on difficult points. There can be peer reviewed papers on diverse sides of an issue.

Furthermore, peer review does not guarantee a viewpoint is right. It is just a professional practice and courtesy in the august cause of some independant checks and comments. Authors are still solely responsible for final published findings. If the authors make arcane errors, most reviewers will not have the time or knowledge to catch them.

It is absurd and pure politics for someone to claim there is only one viewpoint held within a given field of study and it is established by peer review. That is amusing.

On the other hand, the USEPA is an element of government. Is leadership serves the current Administration, whether the President be Democrat or Republican. The USEPA’s work will vary, administration to administration, owing to contemporaneous political opinions and tactics. So its not clear this AGW stuff is something brand new. Environmental science is generally not a rigorous field.