Your characterization of "post normal science" as some form of modern day Lysenkoism, or perhaps on a par with Nazi racial eugenics, is not only unfair but dead wrong. What the article is actually saying is the operational truth. We cannot set public policy based on the same stringent scientific criteria we use in say, physics or mathematics, especially when we are discussing issuers of potentially enormous consequences, as the climate issue. We rely on consensus where there is no unanimous opinion. This is especially the case where delay may only aggravate the problem. We simply do not have the luxury of being able to wait for complete and total proof, especially since I suspect no amount of proof will satisfy the deniers. And it is true, science does not operate in an cultural or social vacuum. All the more reason why sometimes we simply cannot wait for ever for "proof". We learned this with pesticides and we learned it with tobacco, and the battle on this issue is very similiar to those. Neither am I surprised, I suspect it is for the same reasons.

Does this mean that the global warming faction must be right? No. Does it mean their critics must be wrong? No again. Could it be the truth is somewhere in between? Sure. What it does mean is that:

1) the concept of global warming due to or aggravated by human activities is certainly plausible and cannot be ruled out.

2) A majority of reputable climate scientists tend to agree that this is indeed the case.

3) the potential consequences are horrific, while the corrective measures are within our technical capabilities.

I am not a climate scientist, but I am enough of a scientist to know the items above are persuasive enough to suggest that we pursue mitigating policies now without waiting for all the i's to be dotted or t's crossed. To do anything else is simply irresponsible.

The deniers' point to political and ideological reasons why those who warn of global warming cannot be trusted. I submit that the same can be said for the deniers. The frequency and bitterness with which this issue appears in these pages is certainly suggestive of that. Is this "proof" that one side or the other is right or wrong, or even honest or dishonest. Of course not. What it tells me is that under the circumstances, the minority opinion has the burden of proof.

I've used this analogy before, and I will use it again: Don't piss in the soup, we've all got to eat. And don't expect me to have to prove to you that your piss is harmful. It may be pure and wholesome, but you're going to have to convince me of that; I don't have to prove anything to you.