Vermeer and Rahmstorf had a paper rejected by the journal “Climate of the Past.” This news is 16 months old, but I just heard about it, and could find very few references about it on the web.
This paper, On the differences between two semi-empirical sea level models for the last two millennia, promoted their earlier sea level rise models. They couldn’t seem to get traction with this paper.
Here are some reviewers’ comments…
One of the major problems with this work is the decidedly biased analysis and presentation.
Highly biased analysis and presentation.
It currently takes signiﬁcant effort to ﬁgure out which pairs of models and training data sets the authors use, and whether they have evaluated all the relevant combinations of the same.
No surprise here. Rahmstorf has a history of alluding to all kinds of data sets and implying that he has taken them into consideration, but only presenting results for those that support his thesis.
And the final blow…
In the light of the two negative reviews and one comment which all require new analyses and point to fundamental ﬂaws in the methodology of the current paper, I regret to inform you that my conclusion is to support rejection. I strongly dissuade the authors from submitting responses and a revised version.
Here is the paper…
Here is the reviewers’ discussion that lead to the the rejection.
Of course, Vermeer and Rahmstorf do not give up that easily, and similar papers have been shopped around to other journals