I just cannot imagine what Easterbrook is thinking. And your record is only partial. Take this quote from Easterbrook: “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.”
I cannot imagine how to respond (so I didn’t) because the quote isn’t even wrong. It cannot possibly be a scientific statement. It violates the scientific method. So how can I respond? Suppose I said: “This scientific theory that has been written up for publication cannot be peer reviewed because everybody who would be qualified to understand the theory and thus to peer review the paper are listed as co-authors of the paper!” If that wouldn’t peg the B.S. meter, nothing would.
Easterbrook thinks we are spending all this money on the climate models just for the science. He is mistaken. Many/most are spending it for the quality of their predictions. (And quality is subjective to the stakeholders. Such as the people paying the bills.) As has been mentioned repeatedly by someone a lot smarter than me — documenting the requirements and specifications is THE reason for the IV&V. It is so we don’t waste/risk one stakeholder’s money for the benefit of another.