Your discussion of the media's interest in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study — which released its results before peer review — implicitly acknowledges a change in the public authorization of scientific knowledge (Nature 478, 428; 2011). Yet few scientists would accept your branding of them as “purist” or “renegade” for their stance on the study's approach.

BEST members seek to promote a progressive image of science in a demanding, open and transparent society. Stimulated by an erosion of public trust in science, the publication of research before peer review aims to satisfy calls for greater public engagement with science.

Peer review after publication won't just confirm, adjust or correct the BEST results: it will demarcate soberly vetted scientific knowledge from the sometimes glib inferences an emotionally charged public makes through 'unruly' media that do not always report as scientists might want them to.

The progressive publication strategy of the BEST study exemplifies the emergence of a double-truth approach to the authorization of scientific knowledge on climate change.