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.
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.
“The journal follows the standards for high-quality science set by all Nature-branded journals… “
oh oh.
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.
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.
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. 😉
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.
Still aint no such thing as a free lunch.
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.
@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).
[Snip. Take it elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]
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.
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
“Thought-leaders” – weel say no more really!
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
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)
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.
Robert said on February 4, 2011 at 7:25 pm:
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:
‘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. ☺
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.