Whether a mathematical method has value in demonstrating specific principles of a field of science such as the interdependency of various components of climate, and whether that mathematical method has value for original research to extend what is known at the front lines of the same field are distinct questions, separated by a bright line. That bright line is prediction. A mathematical method is absolutely worthless for original research unless and until it *extends* and/or *improves* the ability to predict system behavior over the previous state of the science. (A technique that merely makes the same predictions, with less work, is merely a "trick" for doing the same work in fewer steps not a distinct method.) One cannot state truthfully that the current state of the science is inadequate without improving on it in some way.
Now, let's either talk about the subject of the above article, how to communicate the actual state of the science better, or, if any of us believes he can improve the current state of climate science, then he should go to the proper forum for that, which is the peer-reviewed literature. If you're not successfully peer-reviewed and published then you have no place critiquing the work of IPCC nor any contributor to it. You have no more earned that right than I have earned the right to guide your surgeon or auto mechanic's work. This is also a bright line distinction.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment