h1

Rahmstorf on peer-review vs. the rabble

January 2, 2011

Stefan Rahmstorf has made a (vague) response to my questions about updated sea level data and groundwater depletion.  His response, which can be seen as the second comment here is …

“Science progresses by peer-reviewed publications, not blogs. We are well advanced in preparing a paper that includes the latest sea level data and groundwater pumping estimates, as well as looking at a number of other factors. That will be up for discussion once it appears in the peer-reviewed literature. (Without giving away too much, I can probably already say that we come to different conclusions from what you claim.)”

The progress of science

”Science progresses by peer-reviewed publications, not blogs.” That’s an interesting position from Rahmstorf, since he is a principal contributor to the RealClimate blog. Perhaps RealClimate is to be seen not as a blog, but as a pulpit from which Rahmstorf can preach to the faithful as they sit at his feet and listen in awe. Science does not progress there, it just gets passed down from on high by the priests. Rahmstorf may even deign to take questions from the faithful, as long as they keep their eyes lowered and remember their station. But the real progress can only be made by authors and peer-reviewers when the room has been cleared of the unwashed.

The striking thing about Rahmstorf’s response is that he thinks he has the authority to dictate how “Science progresses.” Anything that deviates from the comfortable format where he wears the mantle of authority is not worthwhile. This is pretty much the attitude that I expected from him.

Peer-review comfort zone

We all understand the peer-review paradigm. A paper is written for publication, but first submitted it to a group of peers for review. The peers’ criticisms are dealt with in a way to make the paper a stronger piece of work.

This peer-review process evolved when communication was slower, contemplation times were longer, and the participants inhabited small esoteric worlds in which the rabble had little interest and rarely visited. It works well with dry questions of science and engineering.

Scientists are human beings and many, as they age, become comfortable in their way of doing things. They build their careers on the model of publishing papers, reviewing papers, and attending conferences. They have paid their dues and they expect their status to be respected.

In the world of climate science some “experts” have puffed themselves beyond the bounds of their arcane niches and on to the political stage.  The peer review process becomes fraught with intrigue when the science is saturated with politics, or when sycophantic peers become rubber stamps. 

Peers or sycophants?

What does “peer-reviewed” mean to Stefan Rahmstorf? An email he sent me three years ago is enlightening. The Journal Science, probably the most influential journal in the world, had published his widely circulated paper “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” about six months before. He sent me the code used to make his projections of “future sea-level rise” and told me “you are the first outside person to test this code.” In other words, peer-review for Rahmstorf and Science includes sycophants from his group, but not an “outside person.”

Up for discussion

Stefan, I have been pointing out flaws in your work and conclusions for quite a while now.   You say these issues “will be up for discussion” when your encyclical “appears in the peer-reviewed literature.”  This is another place where your are wrong.  They are already very much “up for discussion” whether or not you have given permission.

The fear of sea level rise is being used to influence world-wide political and social movements.  You are at the forefront of the sea level rise scare.  This wrenches all of your work from the ivory tower and places it in the middle of  the town square.

Communication is fast now, the rabble has taken an interest, and many are not inclined to genuflect before the experts curriculum vitae.  It is only beginning to dawn on many of the anointed that the internet may pull the rug out from under their claims of impending climate disaster.  The peasants have breached the gate and are questioning the infallibility of their supposed betters.

I will continue to criticize your past work, and you can bet that I will be dissecting your future work.  And I will not recognize some special status that elevates you above your critics.  So if you want to be considered something other than an overwrought alarmist, you better start getting things right.

3 comments

  1. Just read eureferendum and his comment re Richard Palmer in the New Yorker magazine. Mr. Palmer’s article regarding “Major Sources of Bias in Research Studies” would definitely apply here.
    See:http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/shared/biases.htm


  2. Rahmstorf is worse than hansen when it comes to linking natural events to AGW. In his latest article
    w.r.t the flooding in Queensland he makes a direct link to global warming….

    just another crackpot Rahmstorf interpretation
    >>Ohne den Trend in diesen Daten, der zumindest bei >>den Meerestemperaturen klar auf die globale >>Erwärmung zurückzuführen ist, hätte es diese >>Rekorde wahrscheinlich nicht gegeben.
    without the trend in the data, which as far as the ocean temperatures are concerned is a result of global warming, this record would probably not have occured.
    How on earth anyone takes this guy seriously is beyond me. I’m not sure you can ever win with this type of person. Irrespective of what happens they will claim any type of weather event supports their crackpot theory.


  3. […] Given the KMVR2011 model described by equations 1 and 1a, and given a temperature evolution described by equation II (and as illustrated by the various model temperatures in figure 1, and “Model temperature 2″ in particular), then  d2H(t)/dt2 is negative.  That is, the sea level rise rate is guaranteed to be decreasing.  This is a rather bizarre result that is a consequence solely of the design of KMVR2011′s model.  It is not some math trick of mistake.  KVMR2011 should have been able to anticipate this problem, since it parallels very closely a similar problem with VR2009.  And I know Mr. Rahmstorf was reading my blog. […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s