UPDATE: thanks to new signups today, the OAS is well past 200 approaching 300 members now.
As many readers know about a year ago I announced that the newly formed Open Atmospheric Society was seeking membership, and that a number of new members signed up for the society then.
The OAS is an international membership society for the purpose of studying, discussing, and publishing about topics in atmospheric related earth sciences, including but not limited to meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, and climatology. It is open to anyone with an interest at the associate level, but student and full memberships also are offered.
The purpose of the society is to foster quality atmospheric science and atmospheric science communications through outreach, member education, member publishing, and electronic media.
And then the OAS went quiet. Some critics said it was nothing more than a flash in the pan. I can understand how they and others might say that given the circumstances but, in the world of the “climate wars” when it comes to skeptics trying to do something official that might be recognized, things always take far longer to get done because roadblocks get thrown in your way by people that don’t want skeptics to be recognized on any level. Such is the case with the Open Atmospheric Society. By operating in quiet mode, many of the critics who actively challenge such applications thought it was probably dead, and didn’t bother.
What many don’t know is that this effort started all the way back in the summer of 2012, and it has taken this long for everything to finally get done. I’m sure many readers are well aware of the roadblocks that have been thrown at organizations that have applied for a 501(c)(3) status by the Obama administration and the Internal Revenue Service. There have been some horror stories related to some of those organizations, and while this didn’t exactly qualify as a horror story, there were a few hoops that we had to jump through and many delays in the process.
One of the things we had to do was to establish a track record before we could be considered for approval. Our initial application was rejected after several months because the Internal Revenue Service would not approve the 501(c)(3) status on projections alone (apparently models don’t cut it with them, only hard real numbers). We actually had to show that we had a membership and were operating. Therefore last year we had to solicit for membership and run the organization a few months essentially in “quiet mode”, while the IRS made their determinations. This of course gave ammunition to critics who said that the organization was either dead from the start or was just a flash in the pan. Neither is the case, as acting director, I was simply navigating the Red Sea of Tape alone.
I’m happy to report that the OAS has now received its official certification letter of 501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service, and we can now conduct business just like any other tax exempt organization. It has been a long time coming, and given the ahem, hostile climate…
IRS policy that targeted political groups also aimed at open source projects
…we’ve had to deal with, achieving this has been a proud moment for me, and I hope for the other charter members as well.
We achieved the status in April 2015, and I held my breath and waited a while, expecting some challenge to the status from somebody who trolls such approvals with a political intent, but no challenge came. So, at ICCC10 in June, the OAS announced that the organization had achieved the status, and a few new members joined then. There was also a story about it at The Daily Caller: Skeptics Found Scientific Society To Escape Journals That ‘Keep Out’ Dissenters. Still no challenge.
Now that it has the needed status, hasn’t been challenged right after approval, and won’t become a personal tax liability for myself and Joe DeAleo who set up the idea with me, the organization is ready to roll and we can actively begin recruiting new members as well as setting up our Board of Directors.
During the past year I have privately solicited a few people to be on the board of Directors, to help steer the organization. I have three applications in hand, but more are needed to fill out the seats on the board as described in The Charter.
These are some of the initial goals, they will be updated once the board of directors is convened.
-
To provide an organization that offers an alternative to the highly politicized organizations that exist now.
-
To provide a voice for those who are not well represented now.
-
To offer statements and positions regarding atmospheric science as it relates to current news, where appropriate.
-
To provide a scientific journal where publications can be made where no politically motivated peer review interference occurs. Papers must be replicable and pass on merit, not on a viewpoint.
-
To offer a safe place where ideas may be exchanged and examined without fear of retribution.
-
To foster open science, and open science publishing accessible to professionals and to the public.
-
To provide assistance in producing science that can be understood by the public.
-
To offer member to member networking and assistance.
-
To be paperless, easing the burden on the environment,and without need for a central office all business and publications done online.
-
To be true in its methods, its publications, and to its members.
So, I hope you’ll consider joining, or if you have already joined, renewing your membership. For those that wish to help guide the OAS, please consider applying for the Board of Directors. Once applications are in, a vote by members will be convened to elect members.
Thanks to everyone for their consideration, and most important, thanks for your patience while I navigated the Red Sea of Tape.
[This story has been updated to add some new links and the note about increased membership]
Finally, a club that I want to join, and that will have me.
Full membership paid! Good luck Anthony!
A shame I missed this. As a practicing geologist with an early career as a weather forecaster in the Air Force, I have a deep distrust of any organization who says “the science is settled”, and I’d like to contribute to rational research. Maybe another day. Meanwhile, time to earn some pay. I’m not a wealthy climate scientist with my hands in government tills, so, work it is!
hmmm. Military training in weather and climate can be pretty advanced but does not necessarily come with a degree. I wonder if an organization such as the one Anth*** and Joe D. have birthed might consider military training as worthy of full membership. Vetting must be thorough but worth looking into. Anthony?
Cool! It went through without the funky Anth*** thingy putting it in moderation! I quickly added your full name on the end to test the waters and it worked! This time.
Richard, I expect geology would be included under General Science, so you would be eligible for full membership. See Bubba Cow’s comment here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/20/the-open-atmospheric-society-achieves-501c3-status-ready-to-roll-seeking-applications-for-the-board/#comment-1988935
given the ahem, hostile climate…great pun, can I use it?
Excellent. Good luck.
Hopefully you will be overrun with deniers of the Greenhouse Effect and real science will prosper.
[hopefully you will come to the conclusion that you’re wrong…but I doubt it -mod]
How dare you be quick witted with my drink in my hand! I have spit margarita on my screen! Too funny mod. There are lost village members on both sides.
Come now wickedwenchfan, have you no acumen????
Tried to join but paypal wont take my credit card? Anyway, I wish this venture all the best -bruce.
Paypal likes to default to your bank account. You have to find ‘Change’ under Method of Payment and add a credit card, if you want. Or you can just mail OAS a check.
/Mr Lynn
Cool. Thanks for the info.
NYC is very much a water town, the water moderating temperatures year round.
Air conditioning that is not water cooled is prevalent and pumping heat to the outside air.
The Hudson River is a tidal estuary up to about Albany.
Cripes, wrong topic. My apologies.
Just signed up. Keep it sciencey!
Do you have to be a scientist to join? How can us laymen who agree with your goals help?
They have a two-leveled structure, one for professional membership and one for laypersons. If you have a college degree, your area of study may qualify you for full membership. Check out the site for further information.
Some of my relatives feel sorry for me. They think I am not the full quid because I don’t believe in Climate Change. It is therefore heartening, Andrew, that you and Mr DeAleo have formed the Open Atmospheric Society vehicle to do whatever is needed to clean the “atmosphere” of this fraud. Congratulations, I am very proud of you and tell everyone about you. Sincerely, Faye
My biggest apologies, !Anthony! I’m either very very good or very very bad. Nothing in between.
Faye
Electronic “paperwork” is fine, but always keep at least one hardcopy of every publication. (After World War III, we may all be bombed back into another stone age where technology becomes useless to display our various electronic storage media.)
Hardcopy, yes. So the publication has to be engraved in stone. How else would the survivers believe anything.
Open Atmospheric Society
Not for prophet.
Sure must have been a burden! Congratulations –
Hans
Tell me; would you be prepared to publish a submitted paper that supports the view that manmade CO2 emissions are at a problematic level, or could in the foreseeable future become problematic, provided that the paper/research is otherwise of a suitable scientific standard? Or is it skeptics only, regardless of quality? If, as I hope, you intend the former, will you add something to your goals or your charter to this effect?
My point is, are you about helping to protect good science, or just about helping to protect “skeptics”?
[Perhaps if you took the trouble to read the many articles that are featured on this blog you would note that there are many from the AGW camp that conclude man made CO2 is problematic. Many articles and even papers that support and advance the AGW theory. The “charter” of this site is very inclusive of all opinions and the myriad comments are likewise indicative of this.
Your shallow understanding of what WUWT can be helped by a few hours of reading through the articles. Thanks . . . mod]
Thanks for your somewhat charmless response. That’s an interesting way to demonstrate how inclusive you are, and illustrates my point quite well. Your ‘shallow understanding’ of how much ‘trouble’ I’ve taken to familiarize myself with the material certainly hasn’t held you back. Is this what you mean by ‘a safe place where ideas can be exchanged and examined…’?
I’ve been reading this blog regularly for years and I am perfectly aware of its tendency to trawl for the more moronic pro AGW Theory papers in order to feed them to the assembled pack for the slaughter. And I don’t blame WUWT for doing that at all. It’s a target rich environment, and it makes for an entertaining blog.
But I’m asking about OAS not WUWT, and was hoping for the best…
Pete, Thanks for your interest. If the paper is on-topic (i.e. not a paper on cell biology for example) and it meets the standards put forth in the journal, and passes the peer review process, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be published. Good journals cover both sides of the issue, politically motivated ones tend to reject arguments they don’t like.
Anthony,
Thank you, that is exactly what I was hoping!
Good luck!
When I read the stated goals of organization in the original post I read this as one of the bulleted items:
“To provide a scientific journal where publications can be made where no politically motivated peer review interference occurs. Papers must be replicable and pass on merit, not on a viewpoint.”
A reasonably posed question then would not have included this, “Or is it skeptics only, regardless of quality?” In light of the tone of that question, it is my conclusion that one of two things happened to Pete. One, he did not read the bulleted goals of organization, or two he read them and failed to comprehend them. It could only be one of these two items. I will leave Pete to his own conclusions about the depth of his understanding, which I assume is now improved.
I am not a “scientist” because I don’t have a bachelors degree or higher. However I joined as an associate when it was first announced because I have seen enough evidence that the folks setting it up have the right ideals AND the ability to follow through with the right actions.
Of course this may change in the future so I look forward to receiving more information as it becomes available and if possible contribute to the progress of the Society in the future. It will be easy enough to not contribute in the future if things appear to be going off the rails which I don’t anticipate will happen.
It’s like helping a struggling acorn to get it’s shoots out of the ground with a bit of watering – I would love to be able to tell my grandkids I helped that particular oak tree to emerge!!
Kind of like being one of the early signatories of Art Robinson’s Petition Project.
Congratulations Anthony – your perseverance and long term thinking is to be admired!
I just joined as a Lifetime Founding Associate Member.
I suggest you add one or two business types to the board or as advisers to avoid the academic bubble effect and to help give an economic and financial perspective. As you know better than most, It’s not just about the science.
I concur.
Mann and Tamino want to be chairmen.
Best of luck! May you prosper.
This will go down as an historic moment. I just hope scientists, who are sick and tired of the politicising of science, do the right thing by resigning their memberships of existing scientific organisations to join this one.
When The Open Atmospheric Society finds its premises, it should adopt a good motto clearly visible at its entrance. Might I suggest the following:
“De scientia, rem publicam foris” i.e. All about science, so leave your politics at the door.