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.
1) Nature publication
2) Phrase “…, political and corporate thought-leaders”
Done.
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)
:-]
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
And no mention of archiving data, hmmmm.
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?
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.
They’re keepin’ the dream alive in Australia:
http://www.news.com.au/national/governments-global-warming-adviser-ross-garnaut-warns-of-worse-natural-disasters-to-come/story-e6frfkvr-1225999699355
Please just SHUT UP and help with the cleanup, you idiot. (Sorry–no coffee yet this morning–I’m a bit grumpy).
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.
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.
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!
“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?
redc1c4 says:
February 3, 2011 at 3:20 am
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.
“50p”, not “50” in that last post.
I think the phrase “….corporate thought-leaders” would have been better written as “….corporate-thought leaders” or “group-think leaders.”
“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.
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???
Wouldn’t subscribe to that rag anymore than I would subscribe to Hollywood rags. Nothing of importance in them.
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?
Why the addendum for paleoclimate?
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
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?)