I like it but I am guessing the consensus folks aren't going to be so thrilled with it. One small step for Mann, one giant leap for climate science. What I am I thinking, Mann won't show up.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, since it can be very costly to publish in journals I think alternatives are good, but when the first person promoting it is John Coleman that wouldn't inspire me to join.
One problem with the current AMS is that there are too many non-scientist members. Maybe they'll leave to go join this new organization.
EDIT: I should clear up a misconception that some people have. By and large, TV and radio weather people are not weather forecasters--they are announcers that repackage the forecasts provided to them by actual meteorologists. Someone "sitting [at] a computer creating models" may not be the best choice for an operational forecaster, but it's not going to be the TV weather clowns, either. The person I would pick would be someone that is trained in the subject and does it for a living, e.g. a forecaster for the National Weather Service.
To be honest, though, subjective forecasting has less and less value in meteorology--usually the computer models do as good or better job than the human forecaster, especially after the models have been statistically trained.
Let us see how long it takes for the commies to infiltrate and take over then start spewing their tired old AGW crap. Not very long is my prediction.
It is still a panel or committee. Remember, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Plus it has been proven, there is no legitimate arguing with an insane person.
They have an agenda and nothing is going to stop them.
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Is there any sense arguing or debating with a person like that? That is why Jesus said, "Do not cast your pearls before swine."
CR, It is funny you bring up the experience meteorologist. I have a friend with a PhD in behavior psychology who has written 2 books on child discipline, yet is entirely unable to discipline her own child. She wrote the books before having children.
And I cannot count how many times I have talked with engineers who say that this works "in theory", but in practice modifications are needed. Academia talks of theory which does not necessarily reflect reality.
Now if you are asking me who I trust, a meteorologist with many years of experience or someone sitting a computer creating models, guess who my pick is?
But luckily I don't have to pick sides, I can research on my own.
Hey, maybe they'll induct the 31,000 signers of the OIS climate deniers coalition.
That would give 'em a good start.
New climatology body is "cloud-based".
You have to smile.
A science society for everybody. Even high school drop outs can join. Even a TV weatherman like Tony Watts can join.
Tall white guys can solve the problem.
LOL, Willard Tony gets his own journal.
Guess he will finally get his 'papers' published.
Talk about pall-review.
No - but it is a great way to get scientifically illiterate Deniers to give you money.
Membership dues for nitwits who will not be allowed to vote in any organization elections or hold any position in the organization:
Annual: $45.00
Lifetime: $450.00
http://theoas.org/charter/
But, hey - maybe you get a secret science decoder ring and honorary StD (Doctor of Stupidity) degree to show all of your friends.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/a-new-professional-society-for-meteorology-and-climatology-is-announced/
There are already plenty of open journals. Here is one example: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/volumes_a...
Open to deception.
