A new professional society for meteorology and climatology is announced

The Open Atmospheric Society takes a new approach to atmospheric science, becoming the first international society of its kind to be a cloud-based online organization



September 16, 2014 – The Open Atmospheric Society, known as “The OAS” for short, announces its formation, and readiness to accept charter members. The purpose of The OAS is to provide a paperless and entirely online professional organization that will represent individuals who have been unrepresented by existing professional organizations that have become more activist than science based in their outlook. It also aims to provide a professional peer reviewed publication platform to produce an online journal with a unique and important requirement placed up-front for any paper submitted; it must be replicable, with all data, software, formulas, and methods submitted with the paper. Without those elements, the paper will be rejected. This focus on replicability up front is not found in other similar organizations that publish scientific results.

John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel had this to say

It is very gratifying to hear of the formation of The Open Atmospheric Society. A new Meteorological organization and scientific publication have been greatly needed for more than a decade. It is unfortunate that the American Meteorological Society has become totally politicized and conducts itself in total violation of the basic scientific principle of open debate; encouraging competing points of view to be presented and published.

I allowed my Professional Membership in the AMS expire many years ago after being an active member, attending National Conferences and reading The Bulletin of the AMS for many years. Several events occurred that made it clear to me that the society was in the control of people who were using it to complete their personal agendas and the Society would was becoming closed and dogmatic. I look forward to membership in the OAS.

Joseph D’Aleo AMS Fellow, and Certified Consulting Meteorologist adds:

The AMS, AGU and other professional society editors have slow-walked and thrown up obstacles to papers that challenge the “consensus” position, usually forcing authors to go elsewhere to publish their work. They have fast tracked other papers when issues arose that threatened that position. The AMS had policy advocacy as one of the top organizational goals. A professional scientific society should only advocate for good science and leave the policymaking to those elected to determine the policies based on the very best science.


The OAS, whose motto: verum in luce means “truth in the light”, offers not only a place for a free exchange of ideas, but a unique Internet cloud-based journal publishing platform providing emphasis on open review and reproducibility requirements up-front. Here are a few points of interest:

  • Open membership— Associate members, anyone who has an interest in atmospheric science, can join at a basic rate, providing interdisciplinary membership. Professional full voting members, will require a degree in atmospheric sciences or related earth or physical science disciplines, or three published papers in these subjects. Student members get a reduced rate, similar to associate members with option to full member elevation. More details at The OAS Charter.
  • Open journal— The Journal of the OAS will be free to read by the public. Open science— a transparent online peer review process
  • No other journal asks this upfront: strict OAS Journal submission requirements—technical submissions to the Journal by members must include all source data, software/code, procedures, and documentation to ensure reproducibility of the paper’s experiment or analysis by external reviewers.
  • Author account—each author and co-author will have accounts for collaboration, submitting papers, making edits, and responding to reviewers.
  • Emphasis on reasonable publication turnaround, 3 months or less.
  • DOI’s will be assigned and provided with each publication.
  • The OAS will offer press releases and web video assistance for authors to explain papers clearly and effectively to the general public. It will also occasionally offer statements and positions regarding atmospheric science as it relates to current news.
  • Organizational activity will be conducted entirely online – This means no costly brick and mortar infrastructure, no costly postal mailings journals, and no need for warehousing paper files and publications.

The formation of The OAS represents a new way of conducting the scientific method, and welcomes those who feel their professional interests are not being served with the current collection of professional societies who focus on meteorology and climatology. The upcoming Journal of the Open Atmospheric Society has been assigned an official ISSN publication number by the Library of Congress (ISSN 2373-5953) and is registered with CrossRef, the world’s leading scientific publication identifier providing Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) for publications.

If you would like more information about this new society, please e-mail us at contact (at) theoas dot org or visit online at http://theoas.org to learn more or to become a member.

# # #

Follow The OAS on Twitter, here: https://twitter.com/The_OAS

Personal Note:

This is a project that has been two years in the making and was borne out of feedback in this WUWT poll in May 2012:

Many, many, people have provided input that helped shape the concept, and a full launch had been planned for June of this year, but as Murphy’s Law would have it, the Annotum publishing platform used for the Journal became non-functional due to a major software upgrade introduced by WordPress in May. We had to wait for the issue to sort itself out, and now that it has, we have the final green light for the official launch. Here is what the workflow looks like:

OAS_workflow_mapDr. Roy Spencer once said to me that trying to organize climate skeptics would be like “trying to herd cats”. While this Society is not trying to “herd” anyone, nor is it specifically focused on climate skepticism, it will serve to represent a group of people and ideas that up until now has been essentially ostracized because the ideas and viewpoints are counter to “consensus”. Until now, there has not been an organization that represented those people who feel that the other organizations have lost their way. Now, there is.

Feedback from members is going to be our most important asset. Participation will be the engine that drives change. Asking for replication up front will also drive change. While a replication requirement by itself does not guarantee that a scientific paper will be unfalsifiable (all the math and data could be valid, but the premise and/or conclusion can still be wrong), it is a step in the right direction that other atmospheric science journals have yet to demand. Imagine if Cook’s 97% paper or Mann’s Hockey sticks had replicability requirements before publishing.

Further announcements, calls for papers, and organizational notices will be posted in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, you can get familiar with the charter, the goals, and the publishing platform.

Right now, membership is the most important goal. I encourage everyone who reads WUWT to become a member, or an associate member . Like any organization, it starts out small with an idea, and grows as momentum builds. As the momentum builds, so will the organization. My role is to put all the pieces in place, and help it grow.

For the inevitable naysayers, here is one of my favorite quotes from Winston Churchill:

“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” ― Winston Churchill

Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony Watts

216 thoughts on “A new professional society for meteorology and climatology is announced

  1. The Open Atmospheric Society is going to be cloud based. I’m sure there’s a joke in the somewhere.
    BTW, congratulations to everyone involved in setting this up.

  2. Congratulations !
    This will be a milestone in the recovery of science.
    Existing structures that have been to shy to take action or been part of the corruption of science will be left behind.
    Great news.

  3. Best of luck with this endeavor. I fear that the establishment science community will treat this like they do open debate. There will be an aversion to publishing in the journal so as not to legitimize it. Then they can compare it to Fox News and laugh. The model-based “science” will still have their pet publications for alarm. At least it is a step in the right direction.

    • Travis:
      I fear that the establishment science community will treat this like they do open debate. There will be an aversion to publishing in the journal so as not to legitimize it.
      To which the response will be that they are only posting in those paper journals because they cannot meet the higher scientific standards of the Open Atmospheric Society, and are afraid of the public exposure of their data and methods.

  4. Congratulations, and I wish everyone involved great success in this venture.
    However, expect a vigorous pushback from the Climate Industry(tm)…

  5. “would was” typo in John Coleman’s quote.
    (Is there a different way to inform WUWT of typos so that the discussion threads are not interrupted?)

      • Although, everybody “hates” the spelling and grammar nazis, many people find misspellings at the very least annoying and completely “distracting” from the flow of the text, but also it gives a feeling that the website is unprofessional, and thus makes it easier to dismiss and not take seriously. Yes, the science and the discussion are way more important than the spelling and grammar, but spelling and grammar is not that hard to fix, and there is no point giving detractors any low hanging fruit. But I do agree, there should be a way to alert the moderators outside of the comment threads.
        [Life happens. Tell us. .mod]

      • Well OK, here is a minor one:
        Under “Goals”
        “To be paperless, easing the burden on the environment,and without need for a central office all business and publications done online.”
        needs a space after the second comma for easier reading

    • I generally don’t point out typos unless I have some worthwhile comment to make, then I just tack it on at the beginning. And if no one else has pointed it out.

      • I have read, and it is my experience, that most readers simply “auto adjust” for typos and read the phrase/sentence as though the typo wasn’t present. In other words, most minds glide over the minor typos.

      • Having taught at the university level since 1970, I tell my students that the term papers they turn in are practice assignments for grant writing and resumes.

    • I went to the WordPress site years ago and suggested that WP include, in its “Report” button, and option to report a typo. I was told I could do it myself with a macro or some similar programming technique as long as I wasn’t being hosted by WP.
      A jerkish response (it should be built-in, and in both versions. It’s similar to the jerkishness underlying their recent repulsive editor-feature.

    • Section 7. The OAS shall operate initially as an incorporated organization, with the goal to gain recognition as a non-profit organization, heeding all State and Federal Requirements for such a designation.

      • Personally I’m not worried about the membership list going to the IRS or being made public, at least for myself. Other skeptics who wish to remain in the closet likely may have a different opinion on the matter I realize.
        Any confidential membership lists the IRS gets of political rivals to the current Democratic Party administration is likely to get funneled to that organization’s political rivals. For background on how corrupt our IRS has become, read what happened to another 501(c)4’s membership list and confidential tax filings.
        BTW: the IRS simply paid a $50K “fine” (US taxpayer’s money of course) to NOM. And the Justice Dept has refused so far to follow up on the matter and prosecute the individuals involved.
        I just worry about shenanigan’s going on at the IRS these days against Democrat’s political rivals and those they see as opposing the Liberal agenda. The IRS could contrive an excuse to revoke 501(c)3 status some year or more down the road. A 501(c)3 that get its Non-profit status revoked either faces very costly litigation against the IRS in an appeal, or if they capitulate, then they cannot file for (c)4 status. They become For-profit corporations and must pay taxes on all income (dues, publication fees, etc), and any donations are not tax-deductible. Just suppose (future hypothetical) the editor wrote an Opinion piece criticizing say presidential-candidate Hillary Clinton’s stand on claiming “settled science” in Climate Change, IPCC propaganda etc. Politically-motivated operatives in the IRS could stretch the rules and try to revoke a (c)3 status. Just a cautionary thought.

  6. Happy Birthday OAS!
    What a welcome change in the climate community!
    Great thanks to those who founded this.
    Hopefully “closet climatology” will finally become a thing of the past.
    Regards Ed

  7. I’m signed up as an associate. I don’t drink.
    They may laugh at this in public, but behind closed doors… they will be sweating. This is an important initiative.Get something published from Judith Curry right away.

    • Me too.
      As to the thought above that people are going to diss this org? Oh yeah? Who you gonna’ believe? A sneering Guardian article written by one person mocking science findings he doesn’t provide the full evidence for, or a replicable peer-reviewed paper with accompanied data and software methods available online for free for everyone to read?
      Who do you think politicians are going to reference once they realize that the public is reading these papers? And that this org is global?

  8. Dr. Roy Spencer once said to me that trying to organize climate skeptics would be like “trying to herd cats”.
    A herd of cats? No such thing.
    Think of it more as Pride of Lions.

  9. Deeply impressed.
    Sounds like hard work has been done; more waiting.
    Best wishes on the way ahead.

  10. it must be replicable, with all data, software, formulas, and methods submitted with the paper. …..
    I hope that works out…….it’s going to be difficult with most of the facts being conjecture, and most of the history fabricated

      • Exactly.
        Allowing layman (laywomen?) to be able to view and feel that they are part of the proper scientific process is somewhat of an honor, and one, I might add, that I will be proud to embrace.

    • In fact, many professional, scientific societies accept the membership of avocationalists and even interested laymen. The problem seen in publishing research, as exemplified by the collusion in the Climategate emails, is an endemic problem in all of science and far beyond. Cliques tend to seize control of the power to define “professional” and “qualified.” Once that happens, the society ceases to produce new, productive research lines in favor of “consensus.” The upshot is the emergence of “professional” societies that are more social than scientific. New ideas, different ways to looking at phenomena, “stupid” questions that on second thought are not so stupid rarely emanate from in-groups. They tend to emanate from mavericks, and from simple souls who simply want to understand and encountered an explanation that failed Feynman’s requirement of being understandable to most. Members of in-groups that do become original thinkers or consider “non-consensus” views of phenomena seriously are at hazard of being effectively ostracized, cut off from access to funding and to instruments and data collection possibilities.
      There are “problems” of course. Letting “anyone” in means that you encounter ideas that range from startling, feasible alternative views through science fiction to outright nonsense.

      • “So-called “Professionals” in climate science are the problem. I am not a professional climate scientist. When someone tells me that a 380 PPM natural trace gas DRIVES the temperature of our atmosphere, not the Sun, I know it’s baloney. No credentials required.

  11. Will Michael Mann be offered an Honorary Life Membership, seeing as he played such an important part in creating the need for the OAS?

      • Having made the same mistake myself and having had it pointed out politely, I will continue the practice by saying that it is actually “deserts” (related to “deserve”) while being pronounced like “dessert”.
        Ian M

      • Thank you! I looked it up (only after your correction, unfortunately). ‘Just deserts’ is an idiom and I should have known that. The ‘just dessert’ for Michael Mann would be humble pie, with a topping of minced crow.

  12. I am a Fellow of the AMS but dropped my membership several years ago due to its political bias. This organizations sounds like a great idea. I will join and I wish it great success.

  13. Curious to know why the Full Membership category excludes persons with degrees in the biological sciences since the biosphere affects climate. Knowledge of biological organisms and systems has been neglected by much of the climate science community to the detriment of progress in the research. I hope this is just an oversight.

    • The membership requirements appear to be a degree in certain fields or the publication of three papers related to these fields. So, it seems that a person with a degree in biological sciences who has since specialized in climate matters would be eligible.

    • It says “or physical science disciplines”, that does not mean physics.. Biology is a physical science.
      It excludes social scientists, political scientists, psychologists, journalists and cartoonists, for example.

  14. Best of luck and success, I’m sure there are thousands of your supporters like me would like to join but do not have the funds but wish you well, the truth deserves it.

  15. Reminds me of the good old days at the University of Chicago when two inhouse journals: The Journal of Political Economy and the Journal of Law & Economics played leading roles in reversing some widely held economic paradigms related monetary theory and antitrust economics. I hope OAS can play the same role in overturning beliefs about climate change.
    As an aside, I hope you did check into the fact that an OAS (Organization of American States) already exists. People doing searches on Google or other search engines will be easily confused.

    • I am happy to see such an initiative emerging – time to get atmospheric sciences some fresh air. However, I have also a problem with the acronym, but a more serious one : us French associate OAS with Organisation de l’Armée Secrète, which was a terrorist group in the army aiming at overthrowing the government in 1961. In fact, googling OAS in France will return as first hit the wikipedia page about that organisation.
      If you aim to reach french-speaking people, this may cause some concerns. No obvious solution (OrAS ? OAtS ? OASo ?), but maybe I’m creating a mountain out of a molehill.

  16. Of course there will be a requirement for full disclosure of funding sources, right? And will there be open (public) discussion, or a closed peer review process?

  17. Get IN! Well done Anthony and to all those who are supporting you. How the media react to this will be important. I realise that funding will be tight to begin with but it will help you enormously if you can locate a professional PR outfit to faithfully represent the ideals and ethics of the OAS to the lazy/sceptical media. Either that or maybe Joe Bast would act as media adviser during the start-up period.
    Over here in the UK we are standing up and applauding this initiative.

  18. Without a means to hide the decline of scientific integrity this org has no chance of success. Why would scientists submit papers if others only want to pick them apart looking for errors?

      • Indeed it is….but it was an actual complaint, I believe by Phil Jones, in the climategate emails. It was part of his reason for not cooperating. And the green nutters stupid enough to support them consider it harassment of the researchers to issue multiple FOI requests …which is an utterly stupid position to take because all the researcher has to do is put the data online and there would never be another FOI request for it.

      • It’s satire, Phil Jones’ refusal to give McIntyre the surface record data: ” why should I give it you, all you want to do is find something wrong with it.”
        This has been a pervasive attitude amongst alarmist climatologists.
        A good scientist with confidence in his work would welcome external, even hostile examination which would only validate his work.
        Replication and validation are the cornerstones of science. This seems to be a key objective of this venture.
        More power to them.

      • That was an antithetic parallel that obviates any criticism why this new open organization should, must exist. I would say fully 97% of all scientists believe such an organization has always existed when in fact that is not the case – see my original comment for an explanation.
        Hopefully it was as witty as it is now circular.

    • They are everything to do with it and the absence of any real understanding of the mechanisms of cloud formation and precipitation are the main reason why climate models are not “based on physical laws”.
      Lots of nice detail is but the bits that matter aren’t , they’re guesses at “parameters”.

  19. Climatology has been plagued by applications of the equivocation fallacy resulting from ambiguity of reference by terms in the language of climatology This has resulted in widespread misperception of a pseudo-science as a science .Thus, it would be well if the authors of articles submitted for publication to the new journal were to be required to write them in a disambiguated language developed for this purpose by the OAS.

  20. ” verum in luce ” It’s very telling that one has to say this for a scientific organization, but I get it. Let me predict there will similarly be new associations along these lines for physicists and others. Real geologists may not need a new one, they’ve only rotted along the edges and probably can recover. Biologists? Has activism killed this an objective science? Ecology has scientific tools, but I fear these have been overwhelmed by political activism – probably taught in their courses. There will be at least a small core of uncorrupted practitioners to form a new association – Jim Steele would be a good guy to do this.

    • I would also suggest another area of study that needs to clean up its act or start a new association, and that is Software Engineering – particularly in the areas of ethics and scientific modeling.

  21. I have a question about scope.
    The title of the organization suggests it is interested in atmospheric issues, as does the first bullet point. While people with degrees in other earth sciences can be admitted, it appears that the subject matter is atmospheric science.
    The title of this posts refers to climatology, but that is a much broader scope, including studies of the sea, and ice, both sea based an land based. Not to mention solar issues.
    So is the scope of the organization the broad topic of climatology, or only the narrower aspects which emphasize the atmosphere?

  22. Anthony: Just joined up for a full membership to show my support. I used my ChE degree to qualify, although my JD has been my livelihood most of my life. Good onyer, we needed an independent scientific organization to get away from the politics. I expect that the papers will be limited to the science, without the hysteria.

  23. This is big.
    Understand the state of academic research, I received an email with this in it this morning:
    If the question is, are they [principal investigators] are reading their contracts, I know they are reading parts of them since half of them seem to have a problem with one of the basic clauses that has been in every one of these agreements since 2010: They seem suddenly surprised that they should be required to permit public access to research products.
    This follows a review meeting in Aug where a PI told me he didn’t think it was reasonable to put all of their relevant data in an archive. They should only put the data from their publications there, because it is the “best” data.

    • Thinking along the same line.
      As state sponsored “scientific concensus” on global warming is proven wrong by actual scientists.
      And not just your run of the mill skeptic like myself.
      The grants will start to dry up as the politicians that sign off on them.
      Come to the shocking reality that they are going to be far more accountable to the owners of those monies they are handing over.
      This little provision is going to be the cause for extreme angst among the Manns and co. of the fraud that is global warming.
      “Open journal— The Journal of the OAS will be free to read by the public. Open science— a transparent online peer review process”.
      Behold, the emperor has new clothes!

    • OAS is a crime against humanity. All those involved should be subject to some kind of Nuremberg tribunal and locked up. 😉

  24. Congratulations Anthony and all the team that was involved with you in creating this important new organisation to further open access science. The public across the world will thank you all. The formation of this organisation will shake the foundations of the established societies and not before time.

  25. Can I recommend that one of the first actions of OAS is to join with PubPeer, so that the peer review system cannot be gamed or seen to be gamed by Mann-style cliques?

  26. Who knows, maybe science can make a comeback from the dark ages of Gore.
    Meanwhile I wonder if Mann will sue OAS for, I don’t know, something or other.

  27. Dear Gentlemen all,
    I heartily endorse your efforts at creating a counterculture professional organization butting heads with the current madness concerning AGW. My best wishes to all of you who are arguing on the right side of the scientific and philosophical fence. However, even though I am but a simple meteorological technician, a work-a-day forecaster, out here in the hinterlands of the Desert Southwest, I can see that many of you for whom I have great respect have missed a (if not THE) basic tenant of the whole AWG regulatory push. At least I don’t see it written about much. Please consider that this whole kerfuffle is NOT about controlling climate chemistries for the benefit of mankind, it IS about controlling the actions of whole populations on a global scale for the benefit of those would be our dictatorial overlords. One government controlling all of humanity is their goal – with them in control. AWG is just one of the current vehicles designed to carry these individuals forward toward their goals of 1) setting enforcable global law precedent, 2) enriching those who are foisting, controlling and providing future management of these regulations, and 3) maintaining these individuals in positions of power because, of course, they are the solitary holders of the wisdom to know what is best for all the rest of us. IMHO, for them, scientific truth is irrelevant and in actuality an obstacle toward their intended ends. Dare I suggest that we are in a political power war, not a scientific opinion debate? However, scientific truth is gradually providing ammunition against these Napoleon Complex power brokers, so please keep up the good work.

  28. Call me Associate RWhite! Also don’t forget those Facebook likes guys, social media is a big part of growth.

  29. Congratulations! Well launched.
    This restores and goes beyond the original Royal Society intent and Motto:

    The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’ roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

    • No, it means “never put anything in writing”. ( You may get FOI’ed ).
      When the RS were asked to confirm whether or not they had , in fact, helped formulate the questions for the whitewash investigation at CRU as Lord Oxburgh had claimed, they replies ‘Nullius in verba’ .

      • Greg
        We still need to uphold the foundations of the scientific method. TheOIA requirements will set the standard, calling to the level of scientific integrity detailed by Richard Feynman to Caltech in his commencement address 1974 Cargo Cult Science:

        It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
        Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
        In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.

        See What is FOIA

        The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives you the right to access information from the federal government.

        For organizations – there has to be a court case with discovery. That is part of the reason Mark Steyn countersuing Michael Mann.

  30. Congrats, I was truly gobsmacked after reading the recent AMS Climate Status Report, in which hundreds of authors had been fooled into putting their contributions and names into the most blatant piece of CAGW propaganda EVER RECORDED.

    • Why do you assume that they were fooled?
      They may have been fools long before or could have been willingly going along in the most noble and corrupt fashion.

  31. Congratulations!
    The full data / methods / code requirement is really the bright point.
    Just to nitpick: while “verum” may be used as a noun, “truth” is usually rendered in Latin as “Veritas”, and “verum” is more commonly used as an adjective (nominative neuter singular). Seems to me “Veritas in Luce” would be a more “usual” Latin rendering of “Truth in Light”. Any specific reason to use “verum” as a noun? It reads more easily as “True In Light”.
    (See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verum, inter alia 😉 )

  32. I am sure that there are a lot of people who are fed up with the “Global Warming meme” and have said something along the lines of “Wish there was something I could do to stop the insanity.” The OAS appears to be poised to bring into the light that which the proponents of CAGW would prefer to remain hidden. Either joining OAS or supporting OAS through donations will allow each person, in some small way, to join those who wish to stop some of that CAGW insanity. While I am not qualified to write a paper that would help enlighten those who seek scientific knowledge, being able to support those who can, is an honor I can not pass up.

  33. Weather experts:
    Take a look at current Sat. , GOES west, shows the hurricain moving northeast, then below that on the west coast of Mexico another new huge thunder storm complex.
    Where is it headed and is it feeding mostiure to the strom above.

  34. Once again Anthony, I stand in awe of the amount of time you put in on all these varied projects.

  35. Congratulations to all that helped set this up. Might I offer a few suggestions for reviews and editing, as well as the data archival part of the cloud site?
    o – For each paper submitted, there should exist a separate thread for minor grammar and spelling corrections to keep this kind of thing out of the discussion flow for major logic, methodology or other serious review items.
    o – For papers that need data archival, try to set up a meta store for raw data, and then each paper that uses adjustments to this raw data must recalculate and reapply the fully documented adjustments to get a temporary store for replication. In this way, all adjustments can be analyzed for their particular effects on the experiment or as part of future experiments.
    o – A hierarchy or framework (tree structure?) showing how each paper fits into the larger field would be very helpful. For example, the hierarchy might have Earth Sciences at a high level, Climate down one level, Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences down one level from that. Not sure how this could be maintained for multi-discipline studies, but Modeling might have a category under Climate for coupled land/ocean models, and a separate model category for strictly gaseous or Atmospheric models
    o – Each paper should have two mandatory associated items: an abstract saying what the paper is and what is purports to study, with the hypothesis clearly stated, how the methodology tests the hypothesis, and a simple English explanation of results; and it should have a minority report that shows the main weaknesses, arguments against, potential sources of refutation or opposition and areas for further study. This minority report is the place where people could suggest better ways of testing the question at hand. And these two elements should be delivered in Willis Eschenbach elevator speech statements, with common English, no statistics, more like a closing argument.
    Free advice, and worth every penny.

  36. This is an interesting development. Part of my doctoral dissertation was in the use of computer modeling based on spectroscopy data. That’s how I came to be interested in this whole issue of AGW as distinct from the simple ‘it bleeds it leads’ notions of the popular press. I wanted to do some independent research, and as a first stop, I wanted to see the raw temperature data. I was rather amazed that the simple act of having the temerity to ask to see the data (any data, not just the raw data) was met with me being accused of being in the ‘earth is flat’ camp. Just for asking….
    It reminds me a little of the HIV scare of the 1980s. I was citing the actual scientific data on seroconversion rates in discordant couples as a means of measurement of apparent risk of unprotected vaginal intercourse. When I would cite the peer-reviewed stats, I was invariably met with a response of “why is your data so different than the accepted scientific data? why are you trying to get people killed with your lies?” Then I would have to carefully explain to them that what is was quoting *IS* the accepted scientific data. Their uncritical perception was biased so much by media reports that they weren’t even in the ballpark in their understanding of relative risk.
    As I kept digging into the AGW data issue, it became apparent that not only are they massaging the numbers, but that they are massaging the numbers in every way and form possible. And then finally they just came out and said “we corrected the data and threw the original away”. Game over for that data set. Impossibly, irretrievably and intractably corrupt. The (non-satellite) data that survives serves no scientific purpose at this point. I’ve watched 1998 be revised down over and over and over. The only hockey stick I see is in the comparison of the raw vs. corrected as a function of year.
    I will be happy to see temperature and other climate data treated in a WHOLLY UNBIASED AND TRANSPARENT WAY, let the truth shine, and let the chips fall where they may.

  37. And those who don’t accept the atmospheric radiative GHE theory, can they join, or will they be spitefully blocked?

  38. This is good. Herding cats? Maybe. If whatever is considered “the head” keeps honest, then the herd will move in the right direction.
    By that I mean that if the “science” says 2+2=4 but one says 2+2=5, then a slap-down is in order and should be received…with the applicable math rather than ideology. Keep the goal the reality whether “pleasant” or not
    Leave no room for manipulation for any reason in any way, shape or form.

    • PS It might take some time to establish credibility (recognition?). But look what you’re up against. That shouldn’t take much time. I think even TWC pays attention to a Coleman or a D’Aleo forecast.
      (Sorry if I butchered “D’Aleo”.)
      Just get it right.

  39. It will be interesting to observe the terror campaign that will no doubt be started to discredit OAS. The acronym is unfortunate. The AS bit in particular.

  40. The transition for the adults won’t be that hard. From cloud cuckoo land that the AMS, AGU et al have become to the cloud.
    Hopefully this will be a template for other migrations.

    • I saw that too and it was enough to stop me from completing the form. I’m wary by profession. It is a shame the internet has come to this.

    • It is there because that is the membership engine. Rather than try to create/manage membership ourselves (and the security risks such things entail) we opted to use this service to manage it. They are well established and based In Toronto. See: http://www.wildapricot.com/wildapricotcontact
      Your objections to the domain name are akin to not trusting Steve McIntyre because he’s in Toronto.
      We had originally contracted with a company called Non Profit Easy in Santa Rosa, CA, but they botched the execution of the process, wasting months of time, and could not provide some basic features we felt were needed without “customizing” the code. We didn’t want to risk that, so went with this well established membership system instead.

  41. A very good and healthy development. The degeneration of some learned societies and journals under a political onslaught has been a source of great dismay to me. It is good to see a positive response, an ambitious effort to raise scientific and moral as well as intellectual standards back to higher levels in climate science.

  42. After divesting myself of membership of about half a dozen professional and learned organisations, finally there is one I feel like supporting 🙂 I’ll give it a boost on my LinkedIn page.

  43. I am very happy with this development. Anthony, wow. I am seeing more and more news feeds that are reporting the flatlined ,even cooling, temps now calling attention to the fact that the climate models are failed. I am very very hopeful truth will out sooner than later!

  44. The OAS Member Portal second paragraph reads: “It offers not only a place for a free exchange ideas, ”
    Should be “a free exchange of ideas” ??
    Aside from that nitpick, great effort.

  45. Anthony, this seems like a welcome initiative, with open peer review. Who could sla y that idea? Could you just make it clear to the community if you have any financial interest, whatsoever, in The Open Atmospheric Society, OAS.org, or any derivative thereof?

  46. The hope and change crowd just cannot seem to accept that our environment changes every hour of every day. It takes large amounts of hubris to think man can control the climate. Just as a question to ponder, how accurate was your weather forecast today?

  47. just brilliant. Let the OAS be the beacon that illuminates the truth in Climate science. I look forward to it’s success.

    • Fact trumps Consensus
      The Nazi’s tried consensus against Einstein

      Einstein’s fame and the great success of his theories created a backlash. The rising Nazimovement found a convenient target in relativity, branding it “Jewish physics” and sponsoring conferences and book burnings to denounce Einstein and his theories. The Nazis enlisted other physicists, including Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, to denounce Einstein. One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.

      May TheOAS clearly lay out the facts on climate with its high standard requiring data and programs to be posted.

    • It was a humoristic comment , you know satire. Hence the LOL at the end.
      I though we ought to get there first and mock it. If you prefer we can wait until Sturmbandfuehrer Cook thinks of it and claims it as his own.

  48. just because people submit code and data doesnt mean its replicateable.
    just a nit.. otherwise, nice idea. wish you well!

        • Along those lines of reading, Mr. Mosher may have missed this in the story above:

          While a replication requirement by itself does not guarantee that a scientific paper will be unfalsifiable (all the math and data could be valid, but the premise and/or conclusion can still be wrong), it is a step in the right direction that other atmospheric science journals have yet to demand. Imagine if Cook’s 97% paper or Mann’s Hockey sticks had replicability requirements before publishing.

    • The condition that it be replicable covers that. If it cannot be replicated it cannot be published. The fact that it must be replicable puts unspoken requirements on the submission that also covers unknown unknowns and esoterica that cannot be anticipated in a requirements document. Requiring a submission be replicable does not imply it shall be. It is a bold statement that the author should not expect the editors to take him at his word. Simply that and nothing more. That does not exist to a great degree in other publications, hence wide spread pal review. The OAS will exist as a constant reminder of that embarrassing absence and that may be its greatest contribution to science.

      • Though replicability is an excellent requirement it is not a substitute for falsifiability. For satisfaction of of the latter the events in the statistical population underlying the model must exist.

  49. The OAS logo of the Earth seems just a tad North America-centric.
    Suggestion: Maybe make the OAS logo one of those animated GIF’s with the entire globe rotating (in the proper direction of course). Since The OAS is entirely online -electronic, should be cool. Even make a cyclone or two over an ocean basin.

    • Well since it seems to be mainly an alternative to AMS, it probably will be North America-centric.
      But emphasising a global perspective is a good idea. Since it is intended to be non-paper, the idea of an animated logo would be cool.

    • That I agree.
      Using Polar Stereographic projections of the North and South Hemispheres together would look very forward.

  50. Have you selected an Executive Director yet? Good luck on what could become a great new direction for science.

  51. Anthony,
    Treamebdous endeavor! My Founding Associate Membership application has been submitted and paid for.

  52. Fantastic initiative, congratulations to all involved. Maybe now the sullied reputation of science in general, and climate science in particular, can be regained.

  53. This is inspiring news.
    I will not renew my AGU membership when it comes time for renewal after next month. I will apply what I would have spent on AGU renewal toward OAS membership. I have attended the past few AGU Annual Fall (December) Meetings in San Francisco but no more. I will apply the money I would have spent on the AGU Fall meeting toward OAS membership / participation.
    I’ve very often said in the past on threads at WUWT that I will not join any scientifically skeptical org that has even the slightest possibility of political context, while saying that I would join an org with a focus on climate science with scientifically skeptical principles and with independent openness.
    I will join OAS forthwith.

    • I am strongly considering dropping my AAAS membership when it comes for renewal in January. The AAAS has become the AAAPS, the Am. Assoc. for the Advancement of Politicized Science with its publication in Spring 2014 of “What We Know” alarmism. “What We Know” was really “What we thought we knew” that was relevant to 2005-2006, but no longer. It was so sad to see that from AAAS, and I realize how corrupted Alan Leshner and Marcia McNutt allowed that august organization to become.

  54. When Shaun Marcott published his infamous paper extending the global temperature record back 11M years and claimed we where in the warmest period in that entire history, 10 pages of web search results showed the entire MSM frenzied to report it. The day can’t come soon enough when OAS will be cited as the authoritative source to counter this junk science.

  55. “Submissions must include all data, code, algorithms, software, and other necessary materials to be able to independently replicate the submission. Without these materials, submissions will not even be considered.”
    That condition rules out anyone using commercial licensed software. Even duplicating something as straightforward as using MATLAB or Mathematica to solve a few simple equations would be impossible, unless the reader had already bought their own copies. Basically this limits papers to those you can do without maths!

      • It is not reading the files that is the problem – it is generating the results from the data. If it takes anything more than an Excel spreadsheet, then checking the calculation would not be possible for the average reader, and if you limit publications to those that only use free software, you are not going to get any in depth analyses at all.

    • Although the language itself may be proprietary and/or copyright, any programs written for that system are copyright of the author, not the language owner.
      For example, while Excel is itself a proprietary platform, any spreadsheets developed for it can freely distributed, and indeed may be run on other platforms (Libre Office, etc).

  56. “Section 4. Committees and the Board of Directors shall conduct meetings according to Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised in all points not expressly provided for in this charter.”
    We actually had to use this for homeschooling this year. Two teenagers. (:
    Congratulations. A toast to the Open Atmospheric Society, long may it “be true in its methods, its publications, and to its members.”

  57. Recommendations:
    1. Get reputable members of the scientific community on the editorial board and as editors. The better people you get here the less criticism in the future. *Do not fall into the trap of getting anyone on the editorial board that does not have scientific credentials.
    2. Get a fairly diverse editorial board (including mathematics and statistics) and utilize them to screen papers for the editor(s).
    3. The Journal needs a no BS peer-review policy of 2 or more anonymous reviewers (always credentialed).
    4. Utilize reviewers of a mathematics and statistics background when relevant.
    5. Be careful and do not allow commenting outside of the reviewers and author(s) online during the review process as this can quickly spiral out of control.
    6. Get one or more copy-editors (English majors preferred) to review final submissions for grammar and formatting. *This cannot be stressed enough.
    7. Establish strict formatting rules for article types so the journal has a standard look and feel (word length, citations methods etc…) *You can copy the policy of any well known journal and tweak it.
    8. Once the first issue is published, get the journal indexed in Scopus.

    • Anthony, there is scope within this new organisation to overcome another criticism of the peer review system. When starting out to write a new paper, the authors should lodge with OAS a brief synopsis of their aims and intended method. This would be given a reference, to which only they have access, and filed in the cloud. When the paper is published they can use that reference number to recover the date stamped synopsis which would then become part of the abstract. Any variation between the intended methodology and what was actually done would be open for all to see and would deter most data mining exercises.

  58. Joined as member.
    There are a different in Scientific truth, Political truth and Religious truth. Scientific truth usually wins in the long run and this is something I want to happen soon.

  59. It will be interesting. The transparency will discourage agenda driven scientists, but we’ll have to wait and see. It would be hard for the usual suspects to subvert the organization. They will need government help and will get some.

  60. boy I really wish I could afford the associate/non-scientist level membership.
    would be cool to say I had a hand helping support it.
    hopefully I can do it before the time limit expires.

  61. Congrats — wish I could afford membership.
    Expect alot of dissing and poo-pooing from the establishment comrades — this is intruding into their real “expertise” — communication (propaganda/history revision in their case).

  62. Congrats!
    Small issue: to French speakers, OAS means “Organisation armée secrète” (Secret Armed Organization), the one that tried to make a coup against former President Charles de Gaulle when he agreed to Algeria becoming a independent country. The French always complain, we say… 😉

  63. Many thanks Anthony for this endeavor. As an engineer with two degrees, I have joined as a full member especially since I believe in this case I should put my money where my mouth is; and I firmly believe such an organization is needed to counteract the propaganda machine of the government and the questionable CAGW believers. Unfortunately the agenda driven machine has a lot of media exposure and government support.
    I used the option to send a check since I happen to be very cautious about using my credit card on line.
    I suspect that I might need to wait longer to get confirmation.
    Thanks again for all your effort.

Comments are closed.