Here’s proof that Steve Easterbrook simply makes stuff up and then spouts off from authority.
Here’s a short summary of false statements made by Steve Easterbrook. If Steve will provide the requested validation I will correct this summary.
To which I say
Steve Easterbrook asked, Do Climate Models need Independent Verification and Validation?
and answered,
The short answer is “no, they don’t”.
Or, within a little more context:
The slightly longer answer is “if you have more money to spend to enhance the quality of climate models, spending it on IV&V is probably the least effective thing you could do”.
September 26th, 2011 at 12:42 | #10, I said:
Point me to any publicly available document which describes application of any IV&V methodology to any software used in Climate Science.
Still no response.
You said:
You’re misrepresenting me, both here and elsewhere, as arguing against the use of verification and validation techniques (such as those advocated by Roache, Oberkampf & Roy, etc).
Snipped #1
I said:
I challenge you again to point to where I have said what you say I have said. Both here and other places.
No response yet.
Snipped #2
I said:
Instead of bold, un-supported, mis-characterizations of the material, from a position of authority, would you point to a single aspect of either the material that I have posted, or in either of the books by Roache et al., that is not appropriate to scientific and engineering software.
No response yet.
You now say:
The stuff you write on your blog is completely inconsistent with the texts you cite.
I say, Point me to a single example where any of the material on my blog is even remotely inconsistent with the texts I cite.
You now also say:
Claiming, as you’ve done at Judith Curry’s blog, that I’ve said there’s no V&V on climate models seems to me to be evidence of the latter.
I say. Maybe I dropped an I or an Independent. If you will point me to where I said what you claim I have said, I will correct it.
Thanks
You also now say:
O&R don’t even mention IV&V. Not once.
Well, gee, does that mean the procedures and processes can’t be applied by persons independent of those who developed the software?
ok, Steve, you’ve gone way too far this time.
By repeatedly and deliberately conflating “V&V” with “IV&V” you’re misrepresenting everything I’ve been saying. In short, lying.
This is some of the most un-professional behavior that I have encountered in over 40 years of a professional career.
I’ve actually seen worse, but not by much.
btw, how did you manage to conveniently miss this post.
