A would challenge the idea that GW research is actually science. When I did my physics PhD research, I remember coming across a paper by a past president of the Royal Astronomy Society (or something like that), written in about 1952. He made the point that true science is an adventure: You go out there, not knowing what will happen, and see where the data leads you. He was bewailing the fate of modern science where researchers think of something they want to prove (often something to make them famous) and then look for data to support their conclusion. To use a Cornish phrase, this is ass about face. Science should never begin with a conclusion and then try to justify it. Instead, science should begin with data, raw data, and then look for models and hypotheses to explain it. The former approach is political and anti-science; the latter approach leads to great and unexpected discoveries. Unfortunately, almost all work being performed in the field of climate change, being funded by governments with a vested interest, falls into the former category, namely the anti-science approach.