I would object to Easterbrook, et. al., referring to CMIP5 simulations as experiments. Not to mention computer output being referred to as ‘data sets’. That’s just terminology abuse pure and simple.
While I think it fantastic to use simulations to help scientists understand and address outstanding climate questions, I don’t think the models are ready to be depended upon for practical use since they have not undergone formal IV&V. So, IMHO, some of the goals of the project seem, shall we say, overly ambitious.
But I won’t comment there. I found out there is no climate of decorum at Easterbrook’s blog. It would be nice if things have changed. But I’m not ready to go through yet another cycle of making a comment and then him telling me (1) I’m just ignorant, following my reply with (2) well then I must be stupid, to finally telling me (3) I’m somehow evil for not seeing his truth.
I would prefer my views being shown wrong based on their merits. That’s the purpose of decorum after all. It’s not because I’m such a nice guy. 🙂
Comment by George Crews |
September 16, 2011