Misplaced Pages

Bishop Hill (blog): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:16, 22 April 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →Climate change advocacy: There is no blp issue with Dennis posting on this blog, it is reported in a lot of sources, please note them← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:35, 15 September 2010 edit undoLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,604 editsm Unprotected Bishop Hill (blog): move war concluded 
(135 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{mergeto|The Hockey Stick Illusion}}
{{AfDM|page=Bishop Hill (blog)|year=2010|month=April|day=22|substed=yes|help=off}}
<!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdmulti|page=Bishop Hill (blog)|date=22 April 2010|result='''keep'''}} -->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
{{multiple issues|orphan =April 2010|notability =April 2010|POV =April 2010}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Bishop Hill
| logo =
| screenshot =
| collapsible =
| collapsetext =
| caption =
| url = http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
| alexa =
| commercial =
| type = ]
| language =
| registration =
| owner =
| author = ]
| launch date = November 21, 2006
| current status =
| revenue =
| slogan = A dissentient afflicted with the malady of thought
| content license =
}}

'''Bishop Hill''' is a widely-read <ref name="Webster_2010-03-23_Times" /> ] operated by ], author of ]. The blog was founded on November 21, 2006.{{cn}} At first focusing on British politics,{{cn}} Montford, after following a link from a blog posted by ] to ] changed the blog's focus to ] from a ]. Montford`s layperson's explanations of the Hockey Stick debate have received favorable comment from readers such as ]<ref name="Anthony Watts">{{cite web|url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/a-must-read-the-yamal-hockey-stick-implosion-in-laymans-terms/|title=A must read: The Yamal Hockey Stick Implosion in laymans terms|last=Watts|first=Anthony|date=30 09 2009|publisher=Watts Up With That|language=English|accessdate=19 April 2010}}</ref>, ] <ref name="Roger A. Pielke, Jr.">{{cite web|url=http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/has-steve-mcintyre-found-something.html|title=Has Steve McIntyre Found Something Really Important? |last=Pielke, Jr.|first=Roger A.|date=30 SEPTEMBER 2009|publisher=Roger A. Pielke, Jr.|language=English|accessdate=19 April 2010}}</ref> and in '']'', specifically his summaries of posts from ] which he called "Caspar And The Jesus Paper" and "The Yamal Implosion" <ref>{{cite web | url=http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html | title=Casper and the Jesus paper | publiser=http://bishophill.squarespace.com | accessdate=1 April 2010}}</ref><ref name="Matt Ridley">{{cite news|url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml|title=The Global Warming Guerrillas|last=Ridley|first=Matt|date=3 February 2010|publisher=The Spectator|accessdate=9 April 2010}}</ref> <ref name="Andrew Montford">{{cite web|url=http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html|title=The Yamal implosion|last=Montford|first=Andrew|date=Sep 29, 2009|publisher=Bishop Hill|language=English|accessdate=19 April 2010}}</ref>

==Climate change advocacy==
], writing for '']'' after it was revealed ] who had been chosen by the ] to head its inquiry into Climategate, actually had a leading role in a global warming campaign network called Globe International. This was quickly picked up by climate skeptic blogs.<ref name="Andrew Orlowski">{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/26/uea_oxburgh_statement/|title=Anglia defends Oxburgh's eco network ties|last=Orlowski |first=Andrew |date=26 March 2010|publisher=The Register|accessdate=12 April 2010}}</ref> <!-- With Bishop Hill writing "GLOBE – a vehicle for avoiding ]" <ref name="Andrew Montford">{{cite web|url=http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/24/globe-a-vehicle-for-avoiding-foi.html#comments|title=GLOBE – a vehicle for avoiding FoI|last=Montford|first=Andrew|date=March 24, 2010|publisher=bishophill|accessdate=12 April 2010}}</ref> - sentence fragment, no obvious meaning -->

A post on the blog led to the resignation of ], the editor in chief of '']'' from the panel.{{specify}} In an interview with Chinese state radio when asked about the controversy, Campbell said that he believed nothing untoward had happened. The Guardian newspaper commented "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog run by the climate skeptic Andrew Montford and shown on Channel 4 News, risked undermining Muir's claim that the inquiry team was impartial" <ref name="The Guardian">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/climate-change-climategate-nature-global-warming|title=Climate emails review panellist quits after his impartiality questioned|last=Batty|first=David|coauthors=David Adam|date=12 February 2010|publisher=www.guardian.co.uk|accessdate=7 April 2010}}</ref>

Paul Dennis a scientist from ] who was questioned by the police over the controversy posted his account of the interview on Montfords blog, Bishop Hill. He said, "they thought I might have some information on the basis that I had sent a copy of a paper I had exchanged emails with Steve McIntyre over the leak/hack"<ref name="The Guardian3">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks|title=Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks|last=Leigh|first=David|coauthors=Charles Arthur and Rob Evans|date=4 February 2010|newspaper=The Guardian|accessdate=7 April 2010|location=UK}}</ref> Dennis had also refused to sign a petition supporting ] saying "science isn't done by consensus".<ref name="Daily Mail">{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248740/Climategate-Police-question-scientist-email-leak-scandal.html|title=Police question global warming 'sceptic' scientist over 'Climategate' email leak|newspaper=Daily Mail|accessdate=11 April 2010}}</ref><ref name="The Guardian3" />

==Comments and criticism==
] in his '']'' blog wrote "Fortunately the great Bishop Hill has been doing some digging" when the blog found out that George Marshall, founder and director of projects at the Climate Outreach and Information Network had been funded to the tune of £700,000 over two years by ].<ref name="The Telegraph1">{{cite news|url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017912/climategate-how-they-all-squirmed/|title=Climategate: how they all squirmed|last=Delingpole|first=James|date=November 25, 2009|publisher=www.blogs.telegraph.co.uk|accessdate=12 April 2010}}</ref> And "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."<ref name="James Delingpole1">{{cite web|url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018144/climategate-the-whitewash-begins/|title=Climategate: the whitewash begins|last=Delingpole|first=James|date=November 27th, 2009|publisher=The Telegraph|language=English|accessdate=20 April 2010}}</ref> He has also commented on his personal blog saying, "Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. His post’s so delightful there’s no need for embellishment" <ref name="James Delingpole2">{{cite web|url=http://jamesdelingpole.com/blog/ipcc-fourth-assessment-report-is-rubbish-%E2%80%93-says-yet-another-expert-775/|title=IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert|last=Delingpole|first=James|date=February 11, 2010|publisher=jamesdelingpole.com|accessdate=13 April 2010}}</ref>

] wrote on his ] blog of Bishop Hill, "let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre)" <ref name="Anthony Watts2">{{cite web|url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendium-of-cru-email-issues/|title=Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues|last=Watts|first=Anthony|date=22 11 2009|publisher=wattsupwiththat.com|language=English (US)|accessdate=13 April 2010}}</ref>

] on his blog ] wrote "Reader Perry writes in reporting an interesting narrative of the Caspar Ammann affair at Bishop Hill’s blog. It is a detailed narrative written in a lively style of a story that’s been followed here for a few years and re-visited last week with the release of the Ammann SI. The article is very flattering to the proprietor of this blog, I appreciate the interest and the thought. Most readers of the blog will enjoy the story, I did." <ref name="Steve McIntyre">{{cite web|url=http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/12/bishop-hill-caspar-and-the-jesus-paper/|title=Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper|last=McIntyre|first=Steve |date=Aug 12, 2008|publisher=Climate Audit|language=English|accessdate=21 April 2010}}</ref>

== References ==
{{Reflist|refs=

<!-- Order by Author, date and Publication -->
<ref name="Webster_2010-03-23_Times">{{cite web
| url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece
| title = Lord Oxburgh, the climate science peer, ‘has a conflict of interest’
| last = Webster
| first = Ben
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| work = ]
| publisher = ]
| date = 2010-03-23
| format =
| language=
| doi =
| accessdate = 2010-04-22
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| quote = Andrew Montford, a climate-change sceptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog, said that Lord Oxburgh had a “direct financial interest in the outcome” of his inquiry.
}}</ref>

}}
==External Links==
*

*

*
]
]
]

]

Latest revision as of 12:35, 15 September 2010

Redirect to:

  • From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.