> Suggesting that "climate scientists don't believe a whole lot in falsification and validation" is untrue, and something of an insult to the profession I'm a

> Suggesting that "climate scientists don't believe a whole lot in falsification and validation" is untrue, and something of an insult to the profession I'm a quant on Wall Street. All banks have huge model validation teams. Hundreds of people at a typical mega-bank. Collectively the banking industry probably spends well north of $1 BN per year on challenging and validating models. You could say we should do that, since with the wrong models we can cause trillions of dollars of losses. And I agree. But then the climate science wants to ultimately impose trillions of dollars of carbon taxes. Why shouldn't it be subject to similar model validation requirements? Where are the hundreds of people who's job is to challenge the climate modelers? Where are the reports with the identified model weaknesses and the agreed action plans to remediate them? Oh, we have peer review? Voluntary and unpaid. Well, why are you really surprised that I'm skeptical?