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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
nah I’m with P Gosselin on this one. At least with the hard copy one can wipe ones …..
Obviously so good they have to give it away…
Boudreaux: So, how much did you pay for it?
Thibodeaux: It was free.
Boudreaux: You was robbed!
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 😉
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.
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?
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.
This means that Nature is finished. I would not ever consider submitting any work there anymore
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!” …..
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.
😐
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…)
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.
With the bias this publisher has demonstrated, Unnatural Climate Change would be a more appropriate title.
With “WUWT” entered in three “Other” text boxes re publications I read, we will see what happens.
I signed up….just for the heck of it!
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
No. Not worth it. I don’t argue with green activists; it’s a waste of time and precious energy.
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.
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.
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…
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.
John A says: February 3, 2011 at 6:25 am
Why the addendum for paleoclimate?
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.
@frank K.
Great interpretations ya got there! 🙂
-The “Philosophy” entry should be obvious…
They are building a religion. 😉
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.