By repeatedly and deliberately conflating “V&V” with “IV&V” you’re misrepresenting everything I’ve been saying. In short, lying.

ok, Steve Easterbroook, point me to where I have “repeatedly and deliberately” and, especially, point me to where I have been, “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.

I think a self-reference by Steve Easterbrook would be very appropriate here: “Excellent post. It reminds us that real scientists admit and correct their mistakes. Can you match their honesty?”
Comment by Steve Easterbrook | September 29, 2011 | Edit | Reply

Excellent post. It reminds us that real scientists admit and correct their mistakes. Can you match their honesty?

At this post, at this Comment Reply, Steve Easterbrook said:

@Dan: I see you’re still playing “broken record”.
Once again: the processes you prescribe are suited to control systems, where there is very little room for error, and the software has to work correctly once the system goes operational.

Mistake #0001: The material that Steve Easterbrook points to does not even mention “control systems, where there is very little room for error, and the software has to work correctly once the system goes operational.”

My complete comment follows with the parts cut by Steve identified.

I have never applied the procedures and processes outlined in the linked material to real-time software systems of any kind. In stark contrast to your un-supported assertions, I would not recommend applications of the methodology to, ” . . . control systems, where there is very little room for error, and the software has to work correctly once the system goes operational.” I do not have any experience in that domain. None. I do not have any experience with any software that, ” . . . has to work correctly once the system goes operational.” whether or not it’s real-time control software. All my experience has been in the engineering domain of multi-phase, multi-scale thermal sciences in both engineered equipment and open systems.

The following was cut by Steve Easterbrook

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. Or, have I mis-read the title of the books.

I find your assertions completely at odds with all the material in those books, and in the hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers and reports that have been written on V&V of engineering and scientific software over the past two and a half decades.

You have once again clearly illustrated the lack of knowledge of the state-of-the-art of independent V&V and SQA that has been successfully applied to a wide range of engineering and scientific software that pervades the Climate Science Community.

Thank you for your very professional and deeply considered response. Over the period of time that several of us have attempted constructive discussion here, you have yet to provide a single example of the lack of appropriateness of our peer-reviewed sources. Not a single example. You provide only meaningless arm waving from a position of authority.

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.

Here’s a short summary of false statements made by Steve Easterbrook. If Steve will provide the requested validation I will correct this summary.

The saga continues.

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.

Steve said.

“Climate models need, and currently get, extensive V&V. It’s the kind that’s needed for numerical simulations, as set out in great detail in books like Oberkampf and Roy. It has to be carried out by experts, and that means by the same people building the models. We don’t have any other experts available, as I’ve already argued extensively elsewhere.”

This one is very strange indeed. I wonder why the Approved Peer-Reviewed Journals haven’t thought of this. Have the submitted papers reviewed by the authors of the papers. That’ll save lots o’ time and money.

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.