.

## Another fail at WUWT? Where is the Open Atmospheric Society?

Sou | 3:29 PM

### The highly secretive "Open Atmospheric Society"

A couple of people have recently commented on the "no show" OAS. It looks to have missed the official deadline for forming the Board of Directors by several weeks - and the less official one by days now.

Several months ago, Anthony Watts announced a new society (archived here).  It was fairly obvious that it was a creation of his own, though he never admitted to having any official capacity. He did, however, talk about "we" and he stated that "My role is to put all the pieces in place, and help it grow.".

The tech details of the secret society point to the same address as WUWT. As far as I can tell, Anthony Watts' blog is the only one that has solicited membership. Membership is cheap for a scientific society, though not so cheap for anyone dumb enough to sign up for life membership.

There are now two deadlines that have been missed. the first was January 1st 2015. This is the date that I figure marks the six months since the OAS was formed. This date also fits with the deadline on the OAS website, for people to be acknowledged as Founding Members:
Founding membership is limited to the first six months of signup. After Dec 31st, 2014, the Founding membership opportunity will expire.

I think Anthony made an announcement at the Heartland denier fest last year.

The second deadline is six months since the "big announcement" at WUWT, which was on 16 September 2014.

Within six months its Charter states that there should have been at the very least, the election of a Board of Directors, if not an Executive Director. No announcement so far. And there is still no name formally listed as being associated with the OAS.

### How many joined the OAS?

Even though Anthony's "big announcement" attracted more than 200 comments, I only counted 19 people who admitted in that thread that they joined. That included two who only expressed an intention to join, and two that I'm not sure whether they actually joined or not. There were two people who said they signed up as a "Lifetime Founding Associate Member" (cost $450), two ordinary associate members, eight members and seven who didn't say what membership category they applied for. There are most probably others who've joined and haven't said so publicly. As of today, there are 63 "followers" on the OAS website, some of whom could have joined up. The OAS could probably form its Board of Directors, if five of the eight people who said they signed on as members were willing to stand. ### Another failed venture? I'd say that by now it's fairly evident that his "Open Atmospheric Society" has turned out to be a dismal failure. That's being kind. It's probably more accurate to say it never even got off the ground. This is what Anthony wrote last September: 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. The coming days and weeks went on by and not a single call for papers. There's been no announcement of the results of any elections, nor any sign that the OAS has complied with its own Charter in that regard. Nor have I seen anyone ask for a refund. Perhaps, as in other cases when Anthony's begged for money, the people who forked out don't mind how their donation subscription is spent. ### From the WUWT comments Here are some of the hopeful comments from deniers at WUWT, from last September (archived here). Overall, the comments demonstrate what a deluded bunch of people flock to WUWT - and how they have no conception of the world of science: Greg Goodman September 16, 2014 at 9:10 am 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. Travis Casey September 16, 2014 at 9:16 am 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. Bob Shapiro - (for the joke, see here): September 17, 2014 at 11:26 am Is Kenji Watts allowed as an Associate Member? coalsoffire September 16, 2014 at 9:33 am 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. mikerestin September 16, 2014 at 9:36 am Mark this day, Anthony. Today you have taken a giant leap to help keep those in science, and science itself, honest. Congratulations to all involved. policycritic September 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm 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? Kevin Hearle thinks the OAS will shake foundations September 16, 2014 at 12:15 pm 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. José Tomás - (I noticed this, too, and figured Anthony used Google translate) September 16, 2014 at 1:41 pm 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”. Tom got no answer: September 16, 2014 at 3:07 pm And those who don’t accept the atmospheric radiative GHE theory, can they join, or will they be spitefully blocked? nankerphelge September 16, 2014 at 3:11 pm 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. Tom got no answer here, either: September 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm 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? Thanks. TRG September 16, 2014 at 5:27 pm This could be big, and I predict it will not be well received by the establishment. Patrick Blasz September 16, 2014 at 8:06 pm 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. ### Related articles #### 72 comments: 1. If WUWT were as big as they themselves claim with a quality audience of great scientists and critical engineers, it should have been easy to start a society. I wonder whether the numbers are right. Time for an audit. 1. WUWT does get a lot of hits, but I haven't seen much sign of any "quality audience" :( 2. How do you know? 3. Petr, if you doubt the WUWT stats (and there's no reason to doubt them) then the number of comments on each article indicate that WUWT gets lots of hits. Even if half the WUWT page views were spambots, it's still very high. 2. A society for climate change deniers should have had a special membership rate for sockpuppets. 3. Misleading and deceptive conduct in science and misleading and deceptive conduct in trade (misleading membership advertising rises to the level of trade) In Australia, Anthony would be subject to prosecution under section 52 of The Trades Practices Act (1974). 1. I'm not suggesting Anthony intended to mislead from the outset. I think it's just that he didn't know what he was doing - and it's possible he was trying to find another job for himself. He wouldn't be capable of running a scientific organisation - in my opinion - but I don't think he knows that. Or maybe he does, now. (Anthony has all but disappeared from WUWT lately. He seems to have left it to the inmates to run the asylum.) 2. He will have to return the money. 3. (Anthony has all but disappeared from WUWT lately. He seems to have left it to the inmates to run the asylum.) I for one would be more comfortable if I knew what he *was* doing instead of running WUWT. It's unsafe to assume that he has hunkered down behind the sandbags in defeat. 4. BBD I wouldn't be too concerned. Perhaps Anthony is off trying to persuade John Nielsen-Gammon to come to the rescue again and try to get something publishable out of his 2012 "bombshell" paper, that he's had poor Evan Jones slogging away on for the past five years or so? (Or maybe he's taken a trip to Siberia to see if those steampipes really are causing global warming.) 4. The bombshell paper (draft from 2012 still in the sidebar) and the obvious lack of interest in the scientific society must have been pretty hard slaps in the face for Willard. And it all must have looked to him like it had such wonderful potential five years back. 5. Here's a fun one. === John Whitman September 16, 2014 at 7:11 pm 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. ==== Three months later (to the day!) during the AGU fall meeting doubts seem to have set in... ==== John Whitman December 16, 2014 at 11:59 am I miss not being there this year like I was in the past years. May next year. John ===== I wonder what John thinks now. R the Anon 1. R the Anon, I miss the friendships formed by profound skepticism while at past AGU Fall meetings in SF. It would be great to have OAS up and running and to see them at OAS sponsored meetings. John 2. Perhaps you could give us an inside scoop about how its going over at the OAS? is it still being set up? What has your investment gotten you so far? 3. Someone else, Don't you consider, as a critical thinker, a voluntary privately sourced association of independently based intellects focused on the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) is the ultimate format for unrestricted application of applied reasoning? I do. I think it is a profoundly satisfying investment with wonderful potential in both the short term and the long term. Don't you think the most direct way to seek your 'inside scoop' goal is by being a formally registered volunteer? N'est ce pas? But, you can’t be anonymous there. John 4. Ah, so it is a "secret" open society. A "secret" open unrestricted society. Lol :) (Donor's Trust comes to mind.) 5. John, I am by no means asking you to divulge the "proprietary knowledge" that the OAS has imparted upon you in this brief opening chapter of its existence. I'm not asking you to name names, out members, or anything of the sort. The long and short of it seems to come down to curiosity of whether or not it is actually attracting members, if it has created its board of directors (or whatever AW called it), and if its accepting works to be reviewed and/or published. or will it be generating its own reports, its own publication? These are things that should be evident through the activity associated with such a group. And how would i know if its something i would consider joining, if the only way to find out what its all about is to fork over the registration? There should be some sort of primer available to attract new members.... 6. "[A] voluntary privately sourced association of independently based intellects focused on the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) is the ultimate format for unrestricted application of applied reasoning..." WOW, what a weasel-word salad that is. Where do I send my$300?

7. Sou,

It is open for membership application. It is formed within the privately sourced community. My personal assessment is that it is a fine example of the open marketplace of climate science ideas developing voluntarily at need within the private sector. Nice.

John

8. "developing voluntarily at need within the private sector"

Sounds like they are producing private reports to enable the CO2 companies to justify the "burn baby burn" mentality

9. Someone else on April 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM,

=======

Someone else,

So, are you asking me whether I would recommend that you should join OAS and why I think so?

Yes, you should apply for membership if you want to assist with a significantly critical climate science dialog. If that does not interest you, don't join. If you are interested you could apply for membership for the minimum period and if you are given membership then you can always not renew.

John

10. wheelism on April 3, 2015 at 4:15 AM

- - - - - - -

wheelism,

If you don’t like my style of ‘salad’ then there are many ways to resay what I said. Let me know if you want a lot more ways from many others sources. No problem because Google is easy.

Keep your $300 dollars. If we someday meet each other in friendly circumstances in a pub near a climate science conference then you could just offer to buy me a beer. I’ll buy the second. John 11. Someone else on April 3, 2015 at 4:45 AM - - - - - - - - - Someone else, I am sure published research would be published. N'est ce pa? John 12. There are so many contradictions in what John Whitman has written. Then again Anthony Watts hasn't delivered what he promised his readers, either. Nothing. Zilch. John how on earth can you describe a secret society as being "a fine example of the open marketplace of climate science ideas"? What is open about a closed secretive society that not only doesn't name anyone associated with it or its founding, it doesn't produce anything? Doesn't openly share any ideas in any open market place? One very silly press release - and a grand promise of a press release. And a tawdry website with no names. That's it. Do you just like the sound of the word "open"? The whole thing is a joke or, at best, clearly having difficulty in getting off the ground. It's four months past the deadline for a board, yet none have been announced. It's more than six months since Anthony made his "in the coming days" promise: 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. It looks like another example of the paranoid thinking of science deniers. And of their ability to hold to quite contradictory notions without blinking an eye. Or else it's dead in the water. 13. BTW - it sounds as if John Whitman thinks that proper/real scientific societies are something other than "voluntary privately sourced association of independently based intellects". That's exactly what they are. The difference between normal scientific societies and the OAS is that the former are open and transparent and keep members informed about their activities - as well as the general public. The people who run them aren't ashamed to say who they are. And they provide venues for the open exchange of knowledge. (Even climate science deniers are allowed to join and read and publish papers.) 14. Sou on April 3, 2015 at 6:16 AM Sou on April 3, 2015 at 6:26 AM - - - - - - - - - - Sou, Your criticism is that you find fault with how the publically available OAS schedule for itself is proceeding. Your criticism is also that your assessment of OAS is hampered because you haven’t access to the development of OAS that members do. (I do not see that approach having a lot of leverage for you.) So your complaint is that you want news about OAS and because there isn’t any then it must be caused by dark secrecy. When there is OAS news to give to the general public I am sure you will be the first to read it since that seems to be consistent with your single focus on Anthony Watts. On a personal note: I expect that relatively few of any philosophy of science enthusiasts would have the far view that climate science needs new alternate structure, sourcing and competition. So, I am not surprised that you don’t agree with my concepts for doing that. That far view is what I think is developing globally and that OAS is just an example; the process is accelerating in my view. John 15. John Whitman - The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If and when the OAS produces anything, any papers, hypotheses, or analyses that are shared with the greater world for evaluation, then and only then would there be sufficient information to judge whether or not it's for real. Because right now it's a 'secret' society that hasn't met it's goals, and appears to wish to hide from the critical review normally applied to climate science as a whole. It's entire raison d'être seems based on some persecutory conspiracy theory of 'gatekeeping' in science. That, for me at least, isn't something I would consider joining. 16. KR April 3, 2015 at 7:29 AM, - - - - - - - - KR, I think you have the 'raison d'etre' orthogonal to my understanding of its 'raison d'etre'. I think the 'raison d'etre' is to create supply caused by a strong demand for more participants in a free marketplace in science focused on climate. Your (and Sou’s) secrecy presumption is contentless. John 17. "[...] create supply caused by a strong demand for more participants in a free marketplace in science focused on climate" I don't know if you could have made it any more clear that the the intent of the society is "Science for Hire" 18. C'mon, John. Your "free marketplace" is a deliberate attempt to avoid competent peer review (and the inconvenient truth of the greenhouse effect). What possible wider scientific acceptance will the (hypothetcal) OAS journal achieve in the real world? Or, as Someone else has suggested, is "scientific acceptance" really a concern? 19. John, if the majority of members think as clearly as you do, then the society is doomed. I don't think it's run by dark forces. I've no more idea who is running it than anyone else. Anthony is the only person so far to have even hinted that he has anything to do with it and even he hasn't come right out and admitted it. The OAS has failed to meet the deadlines it set for itself and the deadlines set by Anthony - and has failed to meet a single one of Anthony Watts' promises - by months. Heck, imagine if a climate science organisation did that. WUWT-ers would be all over it. As for the demand for some imagined alternative science - I doubt anyone can imagine what the heck you're talking about. There are already journals that publish denier nonsense, so I doubt you mean that (like E&E, and that dog astrology journal). There was the Pattern Recognition journal, too - though that didn't last long when it became known that it didn't have any editorial standards (authors reviewing each others work etc). I hope that the OAS will do something, like more weird press releases from Joe D'Aleo and Anthony. Maybe it will even get enough "papers" for an edition or two of a "journal". Only then, as KR says, will anyone be in a position to make any sort of judgement of it's claim to be any sort of scientific organisation. As for it's reason for being to create supply caused by strong demand - keeping silent has never been a great marketing tactic and is unlikely to create any sort of demand. (There's been no "demand" at WUWT - maybe the occasional question in the comments that goes unanswered. And no-one that I've seen clamouring to supply either. If Anthony ever gets anyone to finish his "draft paper" that's been gathering dust for three years, do you think that the OAS journal would be his first choice of publication? More likely his last resort.) PS the market place for science is already open to everyone. Climate science has to be *the* most open and transparent science of all. The "secrecy presumption" is a matter of public record. You yourself claimed that stuff is happening behind closed doors - though you haven't explained the need nor given a hint of what is happening. 20. Sou on April 3, 2015 at 9:09 AM - - - - - - -- -- Sou, You may have overlooked the vital part of the concept of the free marketplace of science focused on climate. You missed that it is free; free to have some part of a community demand more options in the free marketplace and that they are free to create them. The community members supporting existing parts of the free marketplace cannot restrict those community members expanding the free marketplace. Nice that it is that way. N'est ce pas? John 21. Sou on April 3, 2015 at 9:09 AM said, “The "secrecy presumption" is a matter of public record. You yourself claimed that stuff is happening behind closed doors - though you haven't explained the need nor given a hint of what is happening.” - - - - - - - Sou, What secrecy? You are presuming again; presuming membership therefore secrecy. It is illogical. Personal Note: It is rather amusing that you are implying that I am now an accomplice in a dark secrecy campaign. John 22. Ha ha. Sounds like empty sound bites. AKA gobbledegook. Is that the sort of thing you are being fed? One minute you are arguing that you have to pay a membership fee to participate in the society, next you are arguing that it's free. Well, as you know there are already open access journals where you can read scientific papers for free. Not to mention the fact that there are probably more copies of climate science papers from subscription journals floating about relating to climate science than any other area of science. There are also repositories where you can publish for free, that can be read for free - that have only minimal standards. (eg http://arxiv.org/) Plus there's a vast amount of climate science on science blogs and on scientific websites. Much, much more than most deniers could possibly imagine. What would you rather read? A paper that has been reviewed by scientific experts in the field, or a paper that was reviewed by Anthony Watts - or heaven help us, by Christopher Monckton? (That's a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer if you want to.) More importantly, what would you believe was the more credible? There is also a vast amount of climate-related data provided for "free", which you are "free" to download from anywhere at any time. About the only people to use free data (usually without understanding it) are Willis E. and Bob T at WUWT. And I can't really see either of them making a contribution to any OAS journal. (Bob charges money for his pdf monstrosities. Willis favours proper scientific journals, not denier journals.) I think it's cute the way "free" is bandied about by some people. The less value is inherent in an item, the more the manufacturers of that item have to pay for advertising. (Think Coca Cola.) Which explains one big fallacy in what you are claiming. If you are saying you are free in the climate science marketplace, to create a secret society because there is a demand for one - then that kind of thinking sounds just a tad screwy. Particularly when there's scant evidence of either demand for the OAS or of anyone willing to supply the OAS with anything. (Or that there is anyone with the ability to get the OAS up and running.). 23. No, saying it's not an open society is not illogical. It's what it is. It's (so far) operating in secret. If it is operating at all. And since the week of the grand announcement, you are the only person I've come across to give any indication it's still alive. One has to join before finding out: a) who is behind the organisation b) when it plans to get off the ground and/or if it plans to go public. At the moment it is operating in secret - like a secret society, according to you, releasing some or maybe even all information to members only. Try selling that to the public at large. "Join us. We won't tell you who we are. We won't meet any of our publicised commitments. But if you pay us a membership fee we'll tell you more." Most members of the public aren't that gullible. Most aren't that trusting. Some are. They fall for Nigerian scams, too. 24. Compare the OAS with the "secrecy" of: the AAAS - http://membercentral.aaas.org/ Who's who and what's what in the AGU - http://sites.agu.org/ (click the leadership tab) The AMS - http://www.ametsoc.org/EXEC/boards_commhp.html In fact any scientific society - that's what I mean by open, compared to secret. You seem to think that keeping stuff from the public is normal for a scientific society. It's not. Scientific societies promote themselves, they don't hide their activities. That's how they attract new members for one thing. Now if you are just saying that you're slow off the mark, then say so. Don't go around saying that it's not acting behind closed doors and at the same time that it is. Schrödinger's cat comes to mind. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120126152134.htm 25. John Whitman - The OAS will not be competing in the marketplace of ideas until it has a _product_. Papers, a journal, some presentations, etc. When (and quite frankly, if) the OAS puts out a product, we will have a chance to see if anyone buys it. Of if, as is my expectation given the organizers, if the 'product' is nothing but recycled denier myths only reviewed by, and only of interest to, the already convinced denialati. Much as with the unlamented Pattern Recognition in Physics journal. I'm not going to hold my breath. 26. The issue here is not some imagined "dark secrecy campaign", or even some imagined projection of others imagining some "dark secrecy campaign" (though a little "truth in the light" wouldn't go astray). The issue here is that this organisation is demonstrably in violation of its own charter, n'est ce pas?. In fact, breaching its own charter is its only publicly visible achievement to date, n'est ce pas?. Yet John says people should join if they want to know whats going on. Sorry, John, but most people are unwilling to part with folding stuff to an organisation that has so far only shown an inability to deliver on its promises, n'est ce pas? Frankly, if I had ponied up my hard-earned to this organisation I would, at this point be seeking a refund, and discussing if other members wished to co-ordinate small claims suits* against an organisation that to date seems like nothing more than a two-bit fleecing operation. *technically, there is no such thing as a "class action" in a small claims court, but co-ordinated suits can achieve much the same thing. n'est ce pas? 27. Will the OAS allow dragonslayers to join? 28. Tom asked about that at the time. He didn't get an answer :( 29. Sou on April 3, 2015 at 10:10 AM Sou on April 3, 2015 at 10:19 AM Sou on April 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM - - - - - - - - Sou, Your critical tactics remain only that you disapprove of a schedule change that is at the sole discretion of OAS and that you claim inherent OAS secrecy by mere presumption. Both of those are intellectual vapor. Please restate your interpretation of the AGU’s approach; specifically state your interpretation of the AGU internal policies on public statements releases from members concerning internal AGU’s internal administration matters. John 30. KR on April 3, 2015 at 12:31 PM - - - - - - - - KR, With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong about when participating in the free marketplace of ideas starts for a new scientific society. Only individual people have ideas and interest in ideas. Isn’t the crucial most important participation in the free marketplace of ideas for a startup scientific society its initial call for members? I think it is. A startup scientific society must directly obtain from the free marketplace of science focused men all of its members. So I interpret therefore that the OAS must have entered into the free marketplace at its notice of forming a scientific society. John 31. Give us a break, John. You wanted people to join sight unseen, what appeared to be a dead duck - hinting that there was much activity and joy for people who are members. Now you're telling us it's a mundane delay of a few months. That nothing is going to happen for a while. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Who are the backers - by the way? Has anyone of interest put their hand up? Or is it nothing more than a reborn SPPI/Heartland-style of venture, same old, same old faces - that would be dreadfully boring. 32. A startup scientific society must directly obtain from the free marketplace of science focused men all of its members. So I interpret therefore that the OAS must have entered into the free marketplace at its notice of forming a scientific society. More gobbledegook. What the heck is the "free market place of science focused men"? Sounds like something from the 18th century. Looks as if I wouldn't qualify even if Anthony would have me. And it does sound like Heartland all over again after all. John, rather than making people scroll though endless amounts of white space = you can answer everyone in the same comment. And you don't need to leave so many empty lines. Keep your paragraphs. 33. John Whitman - Again, without a _product_, without some ideas put forth (a journal, papers, a conference, some kind of publication), the OAS and any members in association with it simply aren't in the marketplace of ideas. What you're describing is nothing more than a private club (of denial) until something gets published. And as such, as a private club for those who feel rejected by the mainstream, it's (of yet) of no importance to the world at large. 34. I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away. - Shelley 35. @BBD. Perfect! 6. "though he never admitted to having any official capacity." And yet, if you go to the OAS site and click on the "Join Now" button, you get redirected to theoas.wildapricot.com. The "contact us" at the bottom of that page has a contact phone number: [redacted]. Imagine my surprise when I googled that area code and found that it covers a swath of California that just happens to include Willard Anthony's home town of Chico. So I searched for the number and found that it belongs to an IT company called IT Works, which stunningly... pause for effect... is owned by Anthony Watts. Mind you, the fact that it shares the office at [redacted] CA with Intelliweather (Anthony's we-only-charge-$300-a-month-for-something-you-can-get-for-free company) was a dead giveaway....

Sure, no official capacity...

[While they aren't hard to find, I've redacted contact details as per comment policy - Sou]

7. OAS donations are still at $330 of the desired$2,000 - the same amount as in September 2014.

Hard to start a journal if you don't have anyone writing materials. And the denizens of WUWT generally lack those skills.

1. From Sou's post above:

There were two people who said they signed up as a "Lifetime Founding Associate Member" (cost $450)... So if there's only$330 currently in the pot, then those 2 people lied. Or... are 'donations' separate from membership fees?

2. There are only a small number of people at WUWT who would be capable of getting a paper published. Several WUWT regulars who fancy themselves as "scientists" were noticeable for not commenting on the thread at all, not in support of the OAS, and not saying they would join. In particular Willis Eschenbach, Bob Tisdale, and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. You can add Roy Spencer to that lot.

Tony Brown aka climatereason made one comment, but didn't say he'd be joining.

Judith Curry mentioned it, buried in a paragraph way down the bottom of a blog article about something else, along with something CATO was doing. where she wrote in a lukewarm fashion (pun intended): "I’m not sure what kind of impact either of these efforts will have, but I wish them well."

https://archive.today/VODMz

Probably not the reception Anthony was hoping for. The odd thing, though, is that apart from one silly "press release" about tornadoes, he's only written that one article about it - way back in September. No follow up. Nothing.

https://archive.today/0mXK8#selection-3681.0-3707.59

3. metzomagic - On their membership page they say "If you don't want to become a member, donations are also accepted." Looks like these go into separate pots.

4. Ah, thanks KR. So we have to take the people that say they signed up at their word. But we have no idea how many they really have on board...

5. Eschenbach, Tisdale and Monckton probably don't qualify as members.

"Member: An individual with a Bachelors or higher level degree in Atmospheric sciences, Earth Sciences, Physical Sciences, General Science, Technology, or Engineering – OR- an individual that has at least three (3) published peer reviewed papers an individual that has at least three (3) published peer reviewed papers in any accredited peer review publications that have an ISSN designation.(sic) "

6. Bill Kirk, CEO Co-founder of Weather Trends International...
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Company
Check out the last sentence!
Bill is a graduate of Rutgers University as an Air Force Distinguished Graduate with a B.S. in Meteorology. Bill currently sits on the Advisory Board of Directors for Millersville University's Business of Science Masters Program, and is a lifetime founding member of the Open Atmospheric Society (OAS).

8. "are 'donations' separate from membership fees?"

In the US, yes. If he were to organize as a 501(3)c non-profit, donations would be tax deductible. Membership fees are not.

9. So deniers have a great deal of difficulty publishing their papers in real scientific journals due to the "high priests of science guarding the gates", so what is the excuse for not getting papers published when they have their own forums? You'd think there'd be a flood of scientists just aching to publish their papers since they've been oppressed and suppressed for so many decades.

1. To paraphrase James Lawrence Powell, that would mean they would need to provide proof to support their assumptions, there seems to be a sincere lack of evidence.

10. This OAS is a really strange story, you would expect someone to first build a coalition before announcing a new society.

1. At the very least you'd expect the backer(s) to get a few scientists on board (even less reputable ones) to sponsor/promote the darn thing - and/or have some papers ready to go for the journal. That's what I found most weird of all. Not a name to be found, apart from the initial "press release", which had "testimonials" from John Coleman and Joseph D’Aleo. And John Coleman wouldn't qualify for membership! Neither of them is listed as being affiliated with the OAS. No-one was.

2. A megalomaniac would think that such a initiative would be a grand success al by itself. Just snap the fingers...

But, yes, strange story this. I wonder what Watts will do next to keep the miniature gravy train on the rails.

3. A coalition might have voted poor Anthony out of his own creation: does he have much to offer in either competence or clout?

4. Given that the OAS should only pretend to be a science society, Watts has much to offer. He has great talent for PR and a nice loudspeaker that too many incompetent or political journalists take seriously.

5. Anthony tried something not too dissimilar last year (see here and here - or the HW article here) - he proposed yet another denier organisation. I think he was looking for a paid gig. Lots of people didn't get the hint, and voted variously for Christopher Monckton, or "someone with a Masters in Public Policy". I don't think too many people thought that Anthony himself would play a role on the board or would be exec director.

That idea didn't go anywhere.

11. There is a Facebook page - with 28 likes! Obviously a very popular society.

12. Twenty Eight! Sheesh! A mob ...

1. And to think I was too afraid to open a Facebook account because I thought nobody would friend me.
Thank you OAS, you have changed my life.

13. Anthony may still be in a state of shock from the raging indifference that greeted his announcement of OAS's birth. It's made him look a public fool (again), and the passing of major milestones with nothing to show may have driven him into hiding.

One thing he can depend on, though: deniers have poor memories for the follies of their favorite public figures. I predict he will be back as if nothing embarrassing had happened and his choir will sing again.

Dan L.

1. Choir?

Hate to pour cold water, but Zadok the Priest or Beethoven's Ninth sound pretty feeble when there are only 22 people singing and the altos have all wandered off to the pub with the brass section of the orchestra.

Though we'd all get a bit of a laugh if it turned out like this.