Sentences with phrase «independent validation of the models»

Rather than public evaluation of the evidence, independent validation of the models, and robust public debate over adaptation vs mitigation, climate alarmists like Lewandowsky et al. try to frustrate the scientific method, prevent debate, and impose their incredibly expensive mitigation policies.

Furthermore, since the data are historical, the analysis here is essentially that of a hindcast, and it is debatable to what extent the data can be considered to provide truly independent validation of the models.

Not exact matches

Any results that are reported to constitute a blinded, independent validation of a statistical model (or mathematical classifier or predictor) must be accompanied by a detailed explanation that includes: 1) specification of the exact «locked down» form of the model, including all data processing steps, algorithm for calculating the model output, and any cutpoints that might be applied to the model output for final classification, 2) date on which the model or predictor was fully locked down in exactly the form described, 3) name of the individual (s) who maintained the blinded data and oversaw the evaluation (e.g., honest broker), 4) statement of assurance that no modifications, additions, or exclusion were made to the validation data set from the point at which the model was locked down and that neither the validation data nor any subset of it had ever been used to assess or refine the model being tested

Such reliance is data intensive and hence independent validation of terrestrial system models is problematical.

The structural uncertainty represents the uncertainty inherent in the DNDC model and is set using independent validation data (directly measured daily methane fluxes on benchmark sites) available at the time of methodology publication.

However, when a validation was performed on a similar analysis for which the regression model was calibrated with a subset of the data, and the remaining data were used for validation, it became apparent that models based on the factors that McKitrick & Michaels used had no skill (i.e. were not able to reproduce the independent data).

Oreskes (1998) argues for model evaluation (not validation), whereby model quality can be evaluated on the basis of the underlying scientific principles, quantity and quality of input parameters, the ability of a model to reproduce independent empirical data.

I see two things here, (1) the need to go back to the drawing board on climate modeling with special attention to the causes of natural variations and with a rigorously independent validation program, and (2) the world community needs to be exposed to the real debates in climate science rather than statements amounting to a consensus of those who already agree with a certain consensus.