.

## New denialist journal open to all

Sou | 9:32 AM
This is just so people can talk about the new illiterati society that's just been announced by Anthony Watts. It's called the Open Atmospheric Society. It's got a logo and all. It's open to all science deniers, no matter their sex, race, age or religion. They are pleading for all WUWT readers to join.

Anthony doesn't say who is running it, who is on the board, the editorial panel or who is bankrolling it. He probably has a job there but if he has, he hasn't said so.

The motto is right up the alley of right wing authoritarians: "Verum in Luce" which he says translates to: "Truth in the Light".

I don't have time to go to the website, but you can read all about it here.
https://archive.today/x8ucB

Oh. And Anthony's finally found a publisher for his next "paper". His society will have a "journal" 😜

1. I wonder if this will match the sterling quality we have come to expect from journals of the same ilk, such as Answers Research Journal

2. With John Coleman's support, it has to be a winner.

3. "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. "

So we can assume the Hockey Team will be giving this one a miss then. Providing all the data etc? - who ever heard of such a thing! Why would a real scientist provide their data to people whose "aim is to try and find something wrong with it." ?

1. So Anonymous coward, you are no doubt aware that the data for Mann et al's research has been available since 2000 as per NAS standards! Or are you denying that great legend of the climate cranks that the auditor analysed the data and "debunked" the hockey stick before breakfast.

"McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99 from a ftp server, but could not locate the ftp site for MBH98 datasets and on 8 April wrote to Mann to request this information. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April 2003"

That did not happen? The legend of the auditor is not true. Oh no. Say it is not so.

2. Deniers already have more data than they can poke a stick at. One item of data is too much for most fake sceptics. It's rare to see any denier do anything worthwhile with all the data that's now available.

Take Cook13 as an example. Deniers scream fake hoax but that's not based on them looking at the data. Only one person I know of has used their data in any way, and I've not heard a peep from them. I expect they got the same result as Cook13 - that's if they persevered.

And all the shouts and screams for CRU data - it's been available for years but which of the people who screamed (or any fake sceptic) has done anything with it?

Deniers know how to shriek "data, code", when it's all there for them to use already. Almost to a person, even if they knew what to do with it they wouldn't bother. It's not just that they are too lazy. It's that if they did something with it they know the result would contradict all their denier memes.

Even the auditor who makes out he has some expertise that he doesn't, he played denier tricks pretending he didn't have data that he'd had for years, then not using any of the CRU data that he orchestrated an FOI harassment attack over, plus he buried inconvenient data that he purloined (the AScott cognitive survey from WUWT).

And the rare "sceptics" who do something with data, they seem to only use data to suit a story they want to spin. And take their time about it. We're still waiting for Anthony's effort to rebut his previous paper because the result didn't suit him. He announced it was about to be published ages ago. Nothing yet.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/on-plain-denial-watts-dismisses-his-own.html

3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4. I see the Anon comment has been hotwhoppery-ed. Good call, but I will add this :

The Jones quote was unfortunate, as it fails to capture the context and the bad blood between the correspondents, ths history was that Hughes had a history of using data to launch defamatory and false claims against Jones on his website. The full text is

"I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data - which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider."

I do not defend Jones' words: scientists should be delighted if somebody improves their data, but a single badly-worded sentence lifted from a private correspondence 9 years old is hardly evidence of a widespread conspiracy to conceal data. As Sou rightly says, the shrill cries for the release of code and data are just there to throw sand in the air, there are valid reasons why some data should be withheld, and what is and always has been in the public domain is sufficient, several times over, to support the conclusions of the IPCC and the climate science community.

5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6. It is always no big surprise when a post by someone choosing to call themselves "Anonymous" claims that those who accept the consensus are afraid of opinions against the consensus. "Anonymous" in all his/her guises almost always has no idea of how science is actually done. Agreeing with the consensus is never done lightly. Why? Because it’s not novel or innovative. Ergo, being part of the consensus does not guarantee research funding. And no, funding is not some cabal of government agencies and scientific insiders. If it was there wouldn't be so many funding applications that end up in the not funded basket; I don't what the success rates are for climate science but the NIH funds less than 20% of the applications received each year and they spend $30+billion/year. Equally stupid are these constant claims that climate scientists are involved in some big hoax because they might not want to make hard won data available to everyone who requests it, or because they act like human beings and make a few inappropriate remarks about others in private emails. One thing is for sure, "Anonymous" is never going to gather his/her own data nor is he/she going to agree to let a complete unknown mine his/her emails so that they can plaster the web with quotes taken completely out of context. 7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. 8. Awww, I was hoping we'd get to see "Anonymous' " reply. I had my rejoinder ready. One simple word. Pfffft. (From the Urban Dictionary: An expression of mild contempt or dismissal. Usually made in response upon seeing/hearing nonsense or bullshit.) And if "Anonymous" has any problem understanding the word bullshit I refer him/her to Harry G. Frankfurt's excellent little treatise "On Bullshit"; “Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.” 9. Not deleted, just moved to the HotWhoppery. 4. AW's SurfaceStations.Org site hasn't been updated in a couple of years and the associated database has been down for months. Perhaps his new dog astrology journal will fare better. 5. "He probably has a job there but if he has, he hasn't said so" Probable, indeed, considering he was the one announcing its creation at the ICCC9 (the Heartland conference) http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.dk/2014/07/thoughts-on-international-climate.html Note also: http://theoas.wildapricot.org/news/3011679 This is how it advertized itself: "The OAS to exhibit at ICCC9 16 May 2014 9:54 PM | Anonymous ICCC-9 takes place at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. Come to fabulous Las Vegas to meet leading scientists from around the world who question whether “man-made global warming” will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. Learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop global warming. Meet the leaders of think tanks and grassroots organizations who are speaking out against global warming alarmism. Don’t just wonder about global warming … understand it!" 6. It seems that they are not very selective about their members, so I was going to sign up my niece's dead hamster (living hamsters, I feel, might object). But there's a membership fee so stuff that. 1. So, you do not think your nieces's dead hamster is worth$45? Skinflint.

On the subscription page they have a running total slider of fees collected which as of now stands at $330 - this translates to about 7 people so far. It will be amusing to see when it peters out. My guess is they will reach about 20 members. I expect they will remove the running total slider when it becomes embarrassing. 2. To avoid accusations of cruel indifference to the needs of dead hamsters I will add in my defence that I doubt that membership of the OAS would be worth$45 to a dead hamster. Its not like shredded paper and sawdust grow on trees you know.

3. Maybe you could get a refund on the 10 year life membership?

R the Anon

7. I was about to underline that : OAS in France was a terrorist organisation vowing to overthrow the french President (Charles de Gaulle) who dared to get out the algerian war and let Algerie be free (with some bargains : oil exploitation for several years and nuclear tests). They were quite violent at that : mutinery in Alger, bomb attacks, murders, and they were one of the initiators of the current french right-extreme movement, along with neonazis, royalists, catholic integrists and bonapartists. A nice bunch of people.

Let's say the acronym is not wisely chosen.

8. You're confusing me
Oasis Petroleum Inc. (OAS) -NYSE

Wasn't this about Anthony's "Open Atmospheric Society"
'The first international society of its kind to be a cloud-based'

Quite appropriate, nothing but vapor.

9. whatever happened to E&E? that always used to be the favourite vessel for papers so crappy they couldn't get published anywhere else.

1. John Mashey had a link (at Rabett Run??) on how the denial industry knows that they use up their spokespeople's credibility rather quickly - so they always need new people that don't have a recognizable name associated with a *lack* of credibility. I'd guess the same is true of their journal venues.

2. yeah, my question may have had a moderately large rhetorical component :-)

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.