New journal from Nature – “Nature Climate Change”

If you are interested, click the free subscription bar image above to start the subscription process. Further along, it gets interesting. I thought this page querying what online climate news sources you read was pretty telling:

I note RealClimate, Climate Progress, Stoat (William Connolley of Wiki fame), and even the paid Hoggan public relations firm “DeSmog Blog” are listed.

I reckon that skeptical sites like WUWT don’t rate with Nature, even though we have more traffic and reach than those blogs. I suppose that speaks to the tone of this new journal before it is even published.

(Note: Stoat http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ won’t plot, it only shows scienceblogs.com as a conglomerate rating)

But if you sign up for a free subscription, you can always put wattsupwiththat.com in the Other (please specify) box.

I’m sure the volume will surprise them.

When you are all done, you are treated to a page (below) where they tell you they’ll get back to you if you are deemed “worthy”. Well, they didn’t say exactly that, but it was implied.

I answered all questions carefully and applied for a subscription, it will be interesting to see if they give me one.

Here’s what they say about the new journal Nature Climate Change in the “About the Journal” section of the website:

Understanding the Earth’s changing climate, and its consequences, is a scientific challenge of enormous importance to society. Nature Climate Change is a monthly journal dedicated to publishing the most significant and cutting-edge research on the impacts of global climate change and its implications for the economy, policy and the world at large.

Nature Climate Change publishes original research across the physical and social sciences and strives to synthesize interdisciplinary research. The journal follows the standards for high-quality science set by all Nature-branded journals and is committed to publishing top-tier original research in all areas relating to climate change through a fair and rigorous review process, access to a broad readership, high standards of copy editing and production, rapid publication and independence from academic societies and others with vested interests.

In addition to publishing original research, Nature Climate Change provides a forum for discussion among leading experts through the publication of opinion, analysis and review articles. It also highlights the most important developments in the field through Research Highlights and publishes original reporting from renowned science journalists in the form of feature articles.

Topics covered in the journal include:

  • Adaptation
  • Anthropology
  • Atmospheric science
  • Biochemistry
  • Communication
  • Cryospheric science
  • Ecology
  • Economics
  • Energy
  • Ethics
  • Geography
  • Health
  • Hydrology
  • Impacts and vulnerability
  • Mitigation
  • Modelling
  • Oceanography
  • Palaeoclimate*
  • Policy and governance
  • Philosophy
  • Psychology
  • Sociology
  • Sustainability and development

*Nature Climate Change will publish cutting-edge research on the science of contemporary climate change, its impacts, and the wider implications for the economy, society and policy. Thus, while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.

Advertisements

102 thoughts on “New journal from Nature – “Nature Climate Change”

  1. Thanks for the invitation, but no %$£&*+) thanks! It looks too “expert” for me! I prefer a broader based blog, grovel, grovel;-)) I guess it goes to show just how much money there really is in the AGW Industry when they can afford to do this kind of thing.

  2. Now that puts me in a quandary. I would like to put down WUWT as a source of news information but wonder whether that would impact on my chances of getting accepted.

    Isn’t it unusal for subscribers to a journal to have to be vetted and accepted?

  3. It apperars they have decided to put all the junk climate science in a new journal so they can restore the tarnished reputation of their main journal, Science.

  4. I will pass up this “free” offer.Nothing’s free and I don’t want my name on their subscription list.
    I remember entering my name to win a free gift at the state fair a few times. Only I never won first prize always second which meant I would have to cough up more money to get it than if I went and bought it at suggested retail price at a store.
    Free as in free used cat litterbox filler!
    No Thanks!

  5. everyone, please signup and put wattsupwiththat.com in the “other” box. Perhaps we can FOI later to reveal how many people did that!

    REPLY: I assume you are joking, FOI only applies to government agencies – Anthony

  6. “Understanding the Earth’s changing climate”

    1) What exactly is the Earth’s climate?
    2) What is it changing to?

  7. I clicked on the ‘I do not box’ and would not let me go to the next page to look at what was in it…pity, I just wanted to fill the rest in and send back to them showing how biased their selection of reading is…oh well, I know where I can find the truth, just avoid all their listed news sources…

  8. “Thus, while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.”

    So they only want to hear the views that confirm their own prejudices. So fair-minded!

  9. I too, like Alan the Brit, shied away from the free offer, for three reasons.
    1/ I was offended that it listed the Guardian Environment blog in the science category when it actually fits in the ‘usually advocacy, sometimes science’ category.
    2/ Any publication that deliberately avoids placing WUWT in the science category is showing its true colours.
    3/ Time is too precious to waste time sorting metaphorical wheat from chaff and I am suficiently biased against the publishers to believe that they have turned over a new leaf.

  10. Since they asked questions about budget and purchasing authority, I assume it will be paid for from advertising. That is the natural progression of progressive industries like electronics and computers which have been ad-supported for decades. Climate science is just a little behind, but as it turns into big business, it makes more sense.

  11. The phrase-

    “wattsupwiththat.com”

    is too long to fit into any of the “Other” blocks.

    [Reply: They will certainly know who “WUWT” is. ~dbs, mod.]

  12. Sorry, I just can’t do it! Really! Their reputation precedes them. No integrity at Nature. I also think the monetary price says a great deal about the actual value of their product.

  13. Remember Nature has already ‘ensured’ the editorial values of this by putting one of Mann’s co authors and fellow Penn State worker in charge of editorial control within the ‘earth sciences’ side. It therefore hardly surprises what is not on the list and what is.

  14. y’all are missing the point: go back and sign up, tell them what they want to hear, ask for a printed version and when you get it, toss it in the recycle waste….

    if enough people do that, they’ll go broke.

  15. You see how they are starting to change the null hypothesis? Compare the title “Nature Climate Change” with some of Nature’s other publications: Nature Neuroscience, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Methods, Nature Clinical Practice , Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, Nature Chemistry, Nature Photonics, Nature Geoscience, …

    Now why didn’t they call the new publication, “Nature Climate” rather than “Nature Climate Change”?

  16. PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER.
    Groucho Marx

    PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE WHO USE THOSE CLIMATE NEWS SOURCES.
    Malaga View

  17. Darn

    “Unfortunately, you do not qualify for a free subscription to Nature Climate Change. However, we would like to offer you the opportunity to purchase a subscription.

    A limited number of free subscriptions are available in North America and Europe and are subject to the publisher’s acceptance.”

    Us Aussies aren’t important it seems , even though we have been on the receiving of all their AGW caused “climate”

    I’m SOOOO upset…../sarc

    Pay for a subscription.. surely they jest !! :-)

  18. P Gosselin says:
    February 3, 2011 at 3:02 am
    I prefer the soft TP that comes in rolls.

    In my university days, the wags used to graffiti beside the roll, “arts degrees – please take one”. Perhaps now we could replace “arts” with “climate “science””.

  19. So the entire premise of the journal is to accept climate change as real and talk about the consequences if it is real – pretty amazingly poor science.

  20. What Nature is trying to do here is to establish a ‘trade magazine’ in an ‘industry’ that is mostly populated by ‘climate professionals’.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_magazine

    The deal is, the ‘professionals’ (who have been pre-screened to insure that they have some financial clout or organizational clout) will receive the magazine free. The magazine will be supported by paid-for ads from companies or agencies who wish to influence the readers to recommend or purchase their products and/or services.

    There’s nothing really sinister about this at all. There are thousands of these magazines in almost every conceivable ‘industry’. (Yes, I guess Climate Change is now an ‘industry’)

    The ‘catch’ is, in order for the magazine to be successful, it must actually be read by its free audience. So to succeed the publishers must insure that the content is interesting, informative, or entertaining enough to ‘hook in’ their readership.

    As a engineer I used to get a free subscription to the Electronics trade mag, which I thouroughly enjoyed reading. It had circuit design articles and regular technical columnists who kept the readers up to date in the electronics industry. In return I read the ads and articles featured by the major electronics firms who wanted to influence my recommendation authority.

    A fair trade in my view. But in this case, I suspect most of the Nature readership will be entertained by the usual CAGW/alarmist fare (unless a lot of WUWT readers succeed in snagging a free subscription)
    :-]

  21. Alex Heyworth says:
    February 3, 2011 at 3:46 am

    “In my university days, the wags used to graffiti beside the roll, “arts degrees – please take one”. Perhaps now we could replace “arts” with “climate “science””.”

    No, no! surely there would be an empty toilet roll with an assertion “the toilet roll is in the next cubicle” … and in that cubicle would be another message saying: “the toilet roll is in the next cubicle and if it’s not in that one it’s in the other side”.

    And after going through all the cubicles on that floor, in that building, in the whole building …. it would suddenly dawn on you there never was a toilet roll!

  22. I just threw up into my mouth….

    This is beyond absurd. Welcome to the cult of climate change, which (as this latest from Nature shows) celebrates itself posssibly even more than Hollywood.

    Disgusting. They should be ashamed.

  23. I would think instead of:
    Nature – Climate Change
    it should be called
    Nature – Climate Team Journal

    This is after all what it is – I rather fancy the ‘editorial review’ will match the ‘peer review’ of the IPCC.

  24. I can afford the price, but I cannot afford the aggravation in my life. I trust Anthony and others who read this will keep us informed if they come out with something worthwhile or risibly entertaining.

  25. Now, if they’d let you rate each outlet on a scale of 1 to 10 (and included WUWT, Bishop Hill, etc, of course) … but they already know what that would show them.

    Naturekraft? Nein danke!

  26. In other words, if paleoclimate does not support their claims, it is not going to be considered. Only material supporting their agenda need be submitted.

    Gimli: Certainty of death, *small* chance of success… What are we waiting for?

  27. Orkneygal says:
    February 3, 2011 at 2:56 am
    The phrase-
    “wattsupwiththat.com”
    is too long to fit into any of the “Other” blocks.

    [Reply: They will certainly know who “WUWT” is. ~dbs, mod.]

    ——————————————————————————

    Sorry to have been so vague about my previous post.

    The free text blocks seem to have been designed by pygmy sized programmers whose masters don’t care about who “Others” even are. Else why would the fee text blocks have been so small?

  28. Here is an article for the first edition – Simple High School Maths disproves AGW alarmism

    Lets assume:
    CO2 is the sole driver of global temperature
    The hypothetical temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic (I dont think anyone disputes this).
    Temperature rise since pre-industrial is 0.7c
    Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were 280ppm
    Current levels of CO2 is 390ppm
    CO2 rise / year = 4ppm
    Expected CO2 levels by 2100 are 4ppm / year * 89 years + 390 = 746ppm

    Calculate the climate sensitivity.
    ln(390) – ln(280) = 0.331357
    Sensitivity = 0.7 degrees rise / 0.331357 sensitivity = 2.112525

    Calculate the expected rise by 2100, from current temperatures.
    ln(746) – ln(390) = 0.648579
    Multiply 0.648579 x Sensitivity (2.112525) = 1.370139 degrees temperature rise.

    NOT the IPCC figure of 3 degrees centigrade

    Note this calculation assumes that CO2 is responsible for 100% of climate variation.

    If CO2 is only responsible for 50% of warming since pre-industrial times, the sensitivity is half what I calculated, and the expected rise in temperatures by 2100 due to CO2 is only 0.7c.

    This is why Travesty Trenberth is looking for his missing heat, and the rest of the alarmists keep trying to find tipping points and catastrophic changes. The measured trends are simply not alarming.

  29. there are two models for magazines. Both depend heavily upon advertising. What you find at the magazine rack are those which you have to purchase. The other type like the new nature climate change magazine is gearing up to be is referred to as the controlled circulation type where most recipients do not pay anything but rather fill out a form describing their influence over purchasing products that are intended to be advertised.

    In either case, the subscriber is ‘qualified’ by either the willingness to pay cash for the magazine or by filling out the survey in a suitable fashion. Advertising space is then sold based upon these criteria. There are xxxx magazine readers that meet the circulation standards – pay the price or fill in the survey- so a 1/6 page ad will cost $zzzz. The idea is that your ad reaches so many potential customers.

    In either case, the bulk of the profit and covered expenses are the ads which are more expensive for the controlled subscription types. For the subscription fee publications, the publisher could give them away except that they would lose the qualification factor.

    However, sooner or later, one starts to find pushing efforts by the magazine to increase circulation so they can raise their revenues on advertising. They resort to phone calling former subscribers to get them to do a verbal survey to keep them on the list. Those get quite interesting with intermixing and jumbling together of unrelated products into the same question to maximize who becomes ‘qualified’. The advertisers won’t know this until they eventually discover that their sales through the publication have plummeted, assuming they track this and many ads from bigger companies are really prestige ads, just to remind readers they exist and these are never tracked for performance.

    I can just imagine the new untapped market for advertising bucks from all of the carbon free green companies pushing their wares.

  30. Gimli: Certainty of death, *small* chance of success… What are we waiting for?

    What are we waiting for? In my case an explanation of what on earth this mean? Please help me out here.

  31. In the letter to colleagues, just above the blue subscription link, there is this line:
    “The publication launches in April 2011 and will provide in-depth coverage of the impacts and wider implications of climate change through original research papers, plus opinion, analysis and reviews from ACADEMIC, POLITICAL AND CORPORATE THOUGHT-LEADERS.” (emphasis mine).

    “thought-leaders”? From politicians and corporate heads? Just what I wanted!

  32. There’s nothing really sinister about this at all.

    It might not exactly be sinister but if what you say is true why is Nature involved in this sort of thing? You’re not describing a science journal. Isn’t Nature a science journal and don’t all those other Nature titles sound like science journals? This one sounds like something different. It sounds like an advocacy journal. It comes with a political slant, AGW is true, and everything, including the list of your blog reading, is geared to eliminate non-believers. It’s preaching to the choir by those deepest in the cult. Again, why would Nature tarnish their brand by doing this sort of thing?

  33. redc1c4 says:
    February 3, 2011 at 3:20 am

    y’all are missing the point: go back and sign up, tell them what they want to hear, ask for a printed version and when you get it, toss it in the recycle waste….

    if enough people do that, they’ll go broke.
    redc1c4 says:
    February 3, 2011 at 3:20 am

    y’all are missing the point: go back and sign up, tell them what they want to hear, ask for a printed version and when you get it, toss it in the recycle waste….

    if enough people do that, they’ll go broke.

    It dies not work like that. I think it was Murdoch who told us that to print a copy of the Times cost 5 quid, so why bother selling it for a quid when you can sell it for 50 and increase the circulation. Why increase the circulation (whether or not it gets filed in the round filing cabinet)? Because that increases the amount you can charge for advertising – the real source of income for almost all publications.

    Frankly I think anyone who believes any medium has any other agenda than to sell advertising, or in the case of state media, a political viewpoint, is naive bordering on stupid.

    The IPCC is just a publisher, BTW, and they just make sure their existence is required by trying to make us us believe it is. See it like that, and a lot becomes clear.

  34. I think the phrase “….corporate thought-leaders” would have been better written as “….corporate-thought leaders” or “group-think leaders.”

  35. “Thus, while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.”

    It is a buffer against critical/skeptical research in paleo.

    There is no other way to read it.

  36. Eric Worral: Travesty Trenberth..:-) you have ,me laughing, great nickname!

    the paloeclimate cop out..dead giveaway that the past refutes their claims, so lets ignore it all.
    and I just bet that ALL the publications have no more than 2 major publishing houses as the background owners…disney? or murdoch? or???

  37. Wouldn’t subscribe to that rag anymore than I would subscribe to Hollywood rags. Nothing of importance in them.

  38. The journal follows the standards for high-quality science set by all Nature-branded journals and is committed to publishing top-tier original research in all areas relating to climate change through a fair and rigorous review process, access to a broad readership, high standards of copy editing and production, rapid publication and independence from academic societies and others with vested interests.

    Hmm,… let’s see some elaboration on that “fair and rigorous review process” before we take the bait.

    April (1st?) 2011 publication date, you say?

  39. Why the addendum for paleoclimate?

    …while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.

    In other words, no criticism allowed of badly done statistical analyses, no rebuttals of statements made by climate scientists which turn out to be false, nor any studies which minimize the terrible doom that awaits us all.

    There’s nothing to see here that we don’t already get on a thousand blogs paid for by lobbyists and shadowy Foundations.

    I’m not subscribing. Its a waste of electrons

  40. Garbage in, garbage out.

    No thanks, I can get that stuff for free from Real Climate (where I seem to be banned from commenting….gee, wonder why?)

  41. Silly kids, Tricks are for Mike’s Nature….

    Everyone should apply by filling in all of the most virulent sites (RC, CP, Stoat etc.) and toeing the warmist line to a T (as in rising temperature…).

    That way, all of their “free” subscriptions will be sent to climate realists and all their hard, but well subsidized work will have been in vain.

  42. Eric Worrall: Good point. The logarithmic response is what people tend to forget about. You should also point out that a higher CO2 level would actually benefit life on the planet through increased crop yields which I am pretty sure is not disputed by either side?

    If anything we should be trying to increase the CO2 levels to produce more food to feed the increasing population. Funny how the system naturally does that already, more people -> more CO2 -> increased amount of food. Almost makes you think it was designed that way ;-)

  43. I get most of my information from Isaac Asimov who in my opinion was the greatest science fiction writer, EVER. Although this mag seems to be offering more uptodate science fiction, they are unlikely to top the master.

  44. Palaeoclimate, an area of science that proves Earth was much warmer and much colder in the past than it is now!

    “Nature climate change” sounds like it could be about Natural climate change!
    I’m Amazed at how many times the failed hypothesis of “Man made global warming” can be repackaged under so many different and misleading names/titles and re sold to the public.

    I have a friend who does not believe in “AGW” but insists that “Climate Change” is the real deal! When I asked how are they different? He said “AGW is where man made C02 causes catastrophic global warming and Climate Change is all about the natural changes of our planet”, Is this a typical view?
    Given a choice between the two I can understand where he got things wrong!
    It’s like asking a trick question, Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change which one do you believe in?
    how many of the public are duped in this way?

  45. Like others, I am not interested in being spammed to death as a result of subscribing–though I am dying to poke them in the eye. I’ll bet they will sell your personal details to a spammer/scammer. It’s how they roll.

  46. I’d be afraid of not answering correctly and getting a knock on the door at midnight.
    “The charges are Heresy, Witchcraft, and Unbelief in the Proif!” …..

  47. Charles Higley says:
    February 3, 2011 at 4:41 am
    In other words, if paleoclimate does not support their claims, it is not going to be considered. Only material supporting their agenda need be submitted.

    Gimli: Certainty of death, *small* chance of success… What are we waiting for?

    Getting approved for a free subscription has little or nothing to do with the correctness of anytheory or agenda. The main item they will scan in your application is how much money you control or influence towards the services/products offered by the advertisers in the magazine.

    They charge high rates for advertising, but can mitigate the high cost by promising that “all of our readers have some capacity to approve or recommend the purchase of your products and services”.

    Getting a free subscription is not entirely hopeless for skeptics: in light of the fact that Republicans now have more control of the government expenditures in this area, you might get a subscription if you work in some official capacity that can attract some of the “alternative” vendors such as nuclear, gas, coal (“clean” of course) to advertise or provide other financial support to the magazine.

    But if you just want to argue the AGW issues, and have no control over money, or authoring of articles of interest to the readership, then you’ll have only two chances to get a free subscription: slim and none.
    :-|

  48. Just look at the topic list – this appears to be a platform for publishing more CAGW garbage, with the hopes of raking in more Climate Ca$h from the taxpayers.

    I’ve put my own interpretation of each topic area, which I’m sure will be reflected in the published content:

    * Adaptation (reduce your standard of living or FRY)
    * Anthropology (people are bad for the earth – let’s have less of them)
    * Atmospheric science (results from badly written climate codes)
    * Biochemistry (cow flatulence studies)
    * Communication (you’re too dumb to understand climate science, so we need to “reeducate” you)
    * Cryospheric science (the ice follies – win BIG PRIZES if you guess the September extent correctly)
    * Ecology (live Green or die)
    * Economics (pay us our climate ca$h and agree to big tax increases or else the earth fries!)
    * Energy (windmills and solar panels are good enough – and besides, being warm in the winter in overrated)
    * Ethics (climate scientists good – den!ers bad)
    * Geography (we need billions of dollars to monitor the climate in the U.S. – but it’s only 2% of the Earth’s surface so it doesn’t matter)
    * Health (all [insert medical condition here] is a result of global warming…)
    * Hydrology (global warming causes drought – err, I mean floods – err, I mean no snow – err, I mean big snows – oohhhh… )
    * Impacts and vulnerability (due to global warming, we expect [hotter,colder] summers and [more,fewer] hurricanes, and [rising,falling] sea levels, and…)
    * Mitigation (hey, let’s pump a bunch of particulate crap into the atmosphere and make global warming magically disappear!)
    * Modelling (hindcasting for dummies…)
    * Oceanography (the sea is going to turn into a boiling cauldron of acid because of too much CO2!)
    * Palaeoclimate* (the past is always getting cooler with each set of data we produce)
    * Policy and governance (we don’t know what’s going on with the climate or can predict a damn thing, but we’re going to pass laws anyway…)
    * Philosophy (??? we’re not sure what this topic’s doing here either…)
    * Psychology (improving climate change policy acceptance through mass hypnosis)
    * Sociology (hey, climate scientists use Facebook too!)
    * Sustainability and development (hey, as long as our funding is “sustainable” we’re good to go…)

  49. It is a one stop shop of global warming activist presented without question.

    If you ask me and no one has it is a political publication designed to keep interest, and how to organize and convince the public of man made climate change.

    This one statement says it all. “Understanding the Earth’s changing climate, and its consequences, is a scientific challenge of enormous importance to society”. In other words it is psychological, ethical and propaganda challenge to convince people that higher taxes and redistribution of wealth will save the planet from us humans. All worshipers of nature and big government are welcome.

  50. With “WUWT” entered in three “Other” text boxes re publications I read, we will see what happens.

  51. Thank you but no thank you. My outhouse needs a Monkey Ward, Sears or larger sales catalog. Newsweek and Time just can’t cut the job. Seeing how this is a new publication, the paper will be less than ideal, and leave ink marks./ sarc

    REPLY: Is this the NWS Joe Friday? – Anthony

  52. They will be talking to themselves, an art perfected by the new political class who could talk their own reflection into despair.

    This publication I feel will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers association in the face of the Ford model T, like the V1 it comes too late to do much more than waste vital resources.
    But hey if they wish to waste time and energy talking to themselves in an ever decreasing circle then who are we to complain? I give it twelve issues and two chiefs and then a quiet shut down. While the money is there the bottom feeders will be there, when the flow closes down the feeders will melt away leaving behind a few lost souls milling about in confusion.

  53. I think the correct way to do it is mandatory publishing of preprints on the net (along with experimental/observational data & computer source code & documentation) for all papers done on research sponsored by public money. That’s the first step. As soon as it is done, authors may submit the paper to peer review by whatever “journal” they wish (and pay for the review process from their grants if required, or not, if the journal does its job for “free”). In this case the journal is of course not identical to the publisher, it just puts its stamp of authority on the paper (if it is accepted). In this case online journals (who’s reading hard copies these days, anyway?) would not be collections of papers, but links to the actual papers accepted, preferably accompanied by links to the corresponding peer reviews as well.

    This way the publishing and peer review processes are separated (see checks & balances). There would be a healthy competition between journals as for how they can maintain their authority in the eyes of the public. If a journal accepts a lot of junk science and rejects fine studies, its reputation goes down the toilet in no time. Mark me, journals can still charge money for subscription if they wish or support their operation by ads and give away their content “free” to the public, but in any case they would not sell a product, but a service, the quality of their service being determined by the quality of peer review they provide.

    As papers rejected by certain journals also get published, it is easy to do retrospective quality checks on individual journals. Also, some journals may choose different flavors of peer review, for example open peer review, where name & identity of reviewers are revealed. This way the market could decide which kind of peer review is best. Also, authors would be allowed to submit their papers to as many journals as they wish (or can afford).

    In this kind of world journals would simply function as filters, which makes perfect sense in an environment where span of human attention is a limited resource while information (of variable quality) is abundant.

    Of course it would still be advisable to make public repositories for papers (like arXiv.org) with proper backup facilities & bandwidth, but there would be no need to do any filtering at this level, because that’s a job for someone else (e.g. journals). Disk space has got really cheap by now, worries about overload are not justified.

    Agencies responsible for funding scientific research by public money can base their decisions not on publication history of individual authors, but on their acceptance rate by reputable journals. On the other hand these agencies would be obliged (by the force of law) to conduct public “quality of service” audits on the set of journals they are relying on in their decisions to distribute public money (and change the set or weighting if necessary according to their published guidelines).

    Even private foundations may consider to accept this practice (if their curators wish). Anyway, it would open up the way to establish “best practices” in this field, perhaps also installing some ISO standard to be followed by default.

    In this case sponsors can also be audited by the usual quality audit procedures as well.

    A multilateral treaty on these matters could make handling intellectual property being put into public domain this way easier.

  54. Indeed who is paying for this “free” offer?
    Nature as a publishing group is discredited and this is the latest attempt at brainwashing… Soon they’ll start to pay us to read their stuff…

  55. Philip Finck says:
    February 3, 2011 at 7:50 am
    “I have a friend who does not believe in “AGW” but insists that “Climate Change” is the real deal! When I asked how are they different? He said “AGW is where man made C02 causes catastrophic global warming and Climate Change is all about the natural changes of our planet”, Is this a typical view?

    Absolutely not.

    Worse, it appears that the main stream media constantly contributes to the blurring of these lines to a level that attributes virtually anything that happens to the climate or because of the climate as being caused by man – mostly by CO2 emissions.

  56. John A says: February 3, 2011 at 6:25 am

    Why the addendum for paleoclimate?

    …while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.

    In other words, no criticism allowed of badly done statistical analyses…

    Soooooooooooooo… it’s Steve McIntyre they still fear. Plus a few others now who see the thimblerigging and are calling fraud.

    There’s more. Major relevant disciplines are missing from that august list. Geology. Astrophysics. Meteorology. Whoops. Certain people in these disciplines understand too much.

    Censorship As Usual.

  57. @Frank K.

    Great interpretations ya got there! :-)

    -The “Philosophy” entry should be obvious…

    They are building a religion. ;-)

  58. cba: “There are xxxx magazine readers that meet the circulation standards”
    – with standards that xxxx magazine readers meet, do you want to include yourself in that number? (I know what you were saying, just couldn’t resist, hehehe).

    Well, I signed up, entered WUWT as my other choice, I spend a lot of time on this blog, it’s informative, I tend to agree with much posted here, and commenters are knowledgeable and entertaining.
    Thanks for WUWT, Anthony.

    I was unfamiliar with some of the other choices where the site had it’s own little square you could tick, so I had a look… WOW! – some blatant propaganda and activism on some, hopefully Nature is going to do a bit of data-mining with the results they get. A write in for WUWT can only help. I have a free World Oil subscription obtained by the same means, I don’t get any extra spam because of it, and many of the articles and news are worthwhile. We shall see about this one. I agree with Patrick M. that it ought to be named Nature Climate rather than Nature Climate Change, but then you might as well just get it out; done deal, consensus, settled science, only thing left is to count the extinctions, measure sea level rise and prognosticate and pontificate about the climactic climate minutia that may occur.
    I hope comments will be allowed.

  59. Nature is published by MacMillan Publishing, a subsidiary of Holzbrinck, a German specialty publisher that also owns Scientific American.
    The web site is here: http://www.holtzbrinck.com/artikel/952727&s=en

    Afaik, the parent is privately held. Presumably the owner has opinions, but whether these are reflected in editorial control is unknown.
    It is safe however to assume that the firm is profit oriented, so the business case for this new venture is surely as outlined by cba above.

  60. “The journal follows the standards for high-quality science set by all Nature-branded journals… “

    oh oh.

  61. Stoat? You’ve got to be kidding me. If you look at his comment section he gets almost no traffic at all.

    I agree that it is extremely telling if they list Connelly’s blog – it implies they are directly taking direction from someone either at Real Climate or socially connected with them.

  62. Nature Climate Alarmism
    No non-alarmist letters to the editor.
    A sample of Highly Unwelcome article-topics (but we won’t admit it):
    1. Metrology studies showing that Earth’s ‘average’ temp is unmeasureable.
    2. Photographic surveys of today’s temperature-measurement stations, along with calibration tests of their measurement accuracy.
    3. Studies of how past alarmist predictions are turning out.
    4. Statistical studies showing that ‘Earth’s average temp’ is meaningless.
    5. Bibliographic studies of the alarmism meme in today’s media and in scientific publications, particularly studying how often government-funded papers on unrelated subjects have the obligatory genuflection-phrase ‘consistent with man-made global warming’.
    6. Carbon-footprint studies of the alarmist rich, such as Gore.
    7. Economic studies of the folly of green subsidies, carbon offsets, and energy taxes.
    8. Accounting reviews of topic allocation by government climate science.
    9. Studies of land subsidence and how it contaminates sea-level data.
    10. Computer-programming analyses showing that climate models are fantastically crude and hopelessly simplistic, useless without two more decades of computer advances.
    11. Glaciological studies showing that diffusion causes the composition of the trapped gasses to comprise multi-century averages of the real data.
    12. Paleoclimate data showing CO2 always lagging temp.
    13. Astrophysical data showing that galactic cosmic rays make more clouds.
    14. Agricultural data showing that without the higher CO2 humanity today would be starving.
    15. Geological studies like the recent one in Science showing how there’ll be no more interglacials, so as the next ice age grinds on past 200,000 years
    it will drag CO2 below 180ppm and snuff out all life on Earth.

  63. Berényi Péter says:
    February 3, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Excellent, sir. Very well thought out; it would bring science back to Science.

    Cassandra King says:
    February 3, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Given your excellent track record in prognostication, that’s a likely scenario. The only caveat I have is to wonder how deep the slush-fund pockets are of the backers. Maybe they can afford to dump $¢Ü£¥€ down the drain indefinitely …
    I am in love with your mind, BTW. ;)

  64. Right you are Anthony. That list of sources says it all. Will be very interesting to see how many who listed WUWT will actually receive what promises to be a constant stream of free AGW propaganda.

    And… etudiant says:
    February 3, 2011 at 10:35 am

    “Nature is published by MacMillan Publishing, a subsidiary of Holzbrinck, a German specialty publisher that also owns Scientific American.”

    That’s interesting. Both publications have gone down the AGW rabbit hole at equal speed, and this likely explains why.

  65. H.R. says: “You get what you pay for.”

    Many people say that. But the truth is, you get no more than you pay for. Often, you get a lot less. Misinformation pushes the cost:benefit ratio for a free subscription into imaginary figures.

  66. @TomRude
    > Indeed who is paying for this “free” offer?

    The ‘sponsors’. These are companies/organizations/agencies, who are paying for ads or are otherwise giving financial support to Nature. They have been promised a “return on their investment”, because they can assume the readership consists entirely of influential ‘climate professionals’ who can be influenced (by their ads and “white papers”) to buy or recommend their products/services/policies etc.

    > Soon they’ll start to pay us to read their stuff…

    By giving you a free subscription, they are, in effect, paying you to read it. Otherwise, you’d be shelling out twenty-five or fifty bucks per issue. (Some trade journals even put a “purchase price” on the front cover, though virtually nobody (except the sponsors) have to pay for an issue).

  67. I think I’ll just go borrow a copy from a Community College, Middle, or High School.

    They should have plenty of these rapid response ‘climate’ ‘science’ outreach efforts laying around, to help them answer the questions and criticisms they might encounter.

  68. Alan says:

    No. Not worth it. I don’t argue with green activists;

    Rather like teaching a pig to sing.
    It wastes your time and annoys the pig

  69. That was fun trying to annoy the grennies applying, but they did leave enough spaces to fully type in wattsupwiththat.com Hey maybe in april I will recieve some nice magazine paper to burn to combat global cooling

  70. In contrast to most others whom have commented – I submitted my subscription info (using my work credentials). We’re low budget so I try to get access to research journals any way I can. I’ve yet to be tasked with anything climate change related (that doesn’t mean I haven’t made my opinion known).

    I checked other for where I get my news – the list is obviously biased, and the boxes don’t permit enuf characters.) I also checked other for topics. They completely forgot to list public health.

    I find the whole “climate change communication” thing very surreal. I left climate focused academia some time ago. I’ve become way more conservative since I left.

    WUWT is a great (and entertaining) resource.

    Thanks WUTW. I will most likely post anonomously again.

  71. How disappointing. I see in the list of ‘topics covered’ that there is no mention of how to frustrate FOIA requests, how to finesse the peer review process, how to better defame those who seek access to your data, methods, and computer codes, how to cook up better computer models that eliminate the need for real data, etc. I was hoping that this would be a serious journal.
    [Sarcasm/off]

  72. Climate Change:
    What remains after the Multi-Billion $ spending spree on fancy new PetaFlop Climate Models that can’t see beyond 3 days.
    I hear they’re going on sale…. cheap.

  73. Brian H says:
    February 3, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Cassandra King says:
    February 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
    Given your excellent track record in prognostication, that’s a likely scenario. The only caveat I have is to wonder how deep the slush-fund pockets are of the backers. Maybe they can afford to dump $¢Ü£¥€ down the drain indefinitely …
    I am in love with your mind, BTW. ;)

    Dear Brian,

    Many thanks for the very kind words, you have made my day and made me blush and for that you have my eternal gratitude.
    Money is the key of course, who has it and who is willing to spend it to make more. The CAGW circus is built on money, science with its grants structure and if scientists are good at anything it is how to sniff out the next grant cheque. As long as it pays. With the appearance of the politician with an open pocket book came the carpet baggers looking for that golden opportunity and science saw that the money was green and came running from miles around All that was required of them was to prove CAGW and more grant bucks than they could ever imagine was theirs for the taking, it was a time of the free money angel as cash fell from the skies. The only trouble was of course the old truism, nothing is for free and the actual price of all that free money turned out to be very very high indeed.
    Well, as with the tide, the money tide is going to recede soon.

    Yours

    Cassie K.

  74. Baa Humbug says: February 3, 2011 at 6:32 amnah I’m with P Gosselin on this one. At least with the hard copy one can wipe ones …..
    *********************
    Au contraire mon amis!

    I suspect that it will be printed on slick paper. Slick paper is coated so that the colors will be brighter and the printed resolution will be higher. Bright colors are required to stimulate brain-dead socialist automatons into actually reading the propaganda, sort of like attracting magpies. The coating is traditionally clay; up to 50% of the paper’s weight may be clay.

    But….the “bottom” line is that it will be useless to wipe with. Not only won’t it absorb, but also it will be way too crinkly for comfort!

    However, it could be used as a vapor barrier at the bottom of your parakeet cage. Put it underneath the NY Times which is not slick paper and can absorb moisture. (You might be aware of the plummeting NY Times readership. That’s because they don’t use slick paper and lots of color. But the NY Times IS good for lining your parakeet cage. And the Sunday edition is big enough for an entire chicken coop!)

    (Note to the errant Troll: The above is Sarcasm and Irony, i.e. it’s said in jest. The fact that I have to put this disclaimer at the bottom is NOT a joke.)

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  75. Don’t forget to click your affiliation as “military”, rendering any of their snooping as a matter of national security you are not at liberty to discuss.

    When they read my sources of news, policy, etc., someone will hate me….(c;]

    The AGW industry has grown to be HUGE! It may be so big noone can stop it!

  76. WUWT may have more traffic than RealClimate, but there are many hundreds of porn sites with more traffic than WUWT. There has to be a quality filter, and that’s where you miss the cut.

  77. Does it mention anywhere that the articles will be peer reviewed? Or will this be “science” based on a 27 year old ice climber’s “research” paper saying he has never seen his favorite glacer melting so fast, “It’s unprecedented.” =;0)

  78. The reason this blog is not listed in the publications is because it’s hardly anywhere near scientific. It seems mainly to exist as a means for people to shut their minds to the disturbing truth.

  79. Robert said on February 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm:

    WUWT may have more traffic than RealClimate, but there are many hundreds of porn sites with more traffic than WUWT. There has to be a quality filter, and that’s where you miss the cut.

    Exactly. At WUWT you will find highlighted many high-quality articles and papers on climate science research, as well as absolute clunkers exposed to public ridicule. Here one learns to separate the wheat from the chaff, and get to the real truth. Nature is not interested in those who have access to better quality work than they publish, that goes against the pro-(C)AGW viewpoint they hew to, thus their news sources listings identify those who don’t know any better, or are otherwise disposed to publicly profess acceptance and support of (C)AGW.

    Or were you saying WUWT misses the cut at being a quality (climate) pr0n site? Sorry bud, I thought the BBC cornered that market. ;-)
    ==========

    Rob Davidson said on February 5, 2011 at 12:17 am:

    The reason this blog is not listed in the publications is because it’s hardly anywhere near scientific. It seems mainly to exist as a means for people to shut their minds to the disturbing truth.

    ‘Hardly anywhere near scientific’ is an extreme exaggeration. WUWT is purposely more general-access to garner a wide audience, while other sites linked from here like Climate Audit, Dr. Spencer, Pielke Sr. and Jr, and E.M. Smith are more technical.

    I roughly agree with your second sentence. You learn here on WUWT and similar sites what real scientific inquiry is like, then you try to visit sites like UnRealClimate and ClimaticProgressive and see what sort of “science” people can believe is the truth… *shudder* Who wants to accept that fellow humans can be that un-inquisitive and gullible? Far better to stay away from them, stick to WUWT and similar, and retain some hope that humanity can save itself from its own stupidity. ☺

  80. Rob Davidson says:
    February 5, 2011 at 12:17 am

    The reason this blog is not listed in the publications is because it’s hardly anywhere near scientific. It seems mainly to exist as a means for people to shut their minds to the disturbing truth.
    ——————————–
    Yes, but Rob, why are you here? Do you hope to rub our faces in the “disturbing truth” ?
    Or, are you hoping to promote your musical endeavours?
    The sad news is that we are not going to save you, no matter how sweetly you ask.

  81. Oslo says:

    “It is a buffer against critical/skeptical research in paleo.”

    SCIENCE AS THEATRE
    I agree, Oslo.

    Take stock of the present situation: Wikipedia can only quote published, refereed papers: presto they will be pal-reviewed and published in an ‘off-Broadway’ magazine with a guaranteed (free) readership. They will or course quote each others’ papers.
    It gets the Team’s climate nonsense off the pages of Broadway publications.

    The Team will tout the relationship with Nature/Science as proof of its ‘reputability’. Publication will be fast, guaranteed and not reviewed by anyone with contrary views. Rebuttals will not be accepted because they ‘do not add relevance’. Past temperatures will continue to fall, GCR influence will wane faster than a Maundering Sun.

    Wiki-pal-ia will be back on track, Nature will be ‘rid of this priest’ and people who really do understand the climate in historical context will never see their works published there. Nature will refer McIntyre’s real science to their off-Broadway publication specialising in the subject where Team reviewers will spike it as irrelevant.

    Real Climate will wax pontifical about how there are so many new supporting papers on the subject of blah-blah-blah in the reviewed literature – look for confirmation of blah-blah in an upcoming article…

    It might work! It is a pretty good plan – better than steam-bending hockey sticks. Better, that is if you have no morals or integrity and see science as Theatre of the Absurd. Let’s see who buys a ticket.

  82. You need to take a lesson from my Canadian-born father and start rooting for the country of your citizenship: America. Few things are more annoying than someone who becomes a citizen on paper, but not with their heart.

Comments are closed.