In big-boy science, people who run an experiment and arrive at meaningful findings will publish not only those findings but the data and methodology they used to reach those findings. They do that because in most sciences, a conclusion is not really considered robust until multiple independent parties have replicated the finding, and they can’t replicate the finding until they know exactly how it was reached. Physics scientists don’t run around talking about peer review as the be-all-end-all of scientific validation. Instead of relying on peers to read over an article to look for mistakes, they go out and see if they can replicate the results. It is expected that others in the profession will try to replicate, or even tear down, a controversial new finding. Such a process is why we aren’t all running around talking about the cold fusion "consensus" based on "peer-reviewed science." It would simply be bizarre for someone in physics, say, to argue that their findings were beyond question simply because it had been peer reviewed by a cherry-picked review group and to refuse to publish their data or detailed methodology.
Some day climate science may be all grown up, but right now its far from it.