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 04:16, 29 April 2010 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits readd reliable source. Why was this removed?← 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 
(101 intermediate revisions by 21 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 -->
{{Merge to|The Hockey Stick Illusion|date=April 2010}}
{{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 ] operated by ], author of '']''.<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><ref>], "", '']'', 3 February 2010.</ref>

], the editor in chief of '']'' resigned from the Independent Climate Change Email Review after the blog (and ]) publicized an interview he'd given in the Chinese media in which he stated that there was no evidence to suggest a coverup.{{Specify|date=April 2010}}<ref name="The Guardian2">{{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> ], writing for ], noted that the blog was one of several to initially report the story that ] had been choosen by the ] to head its enquiry into the ].<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=26th March 2010|publisher=The Register|language=English|accessdate=12 April 2010}}</ref> The ] noted that the blog had criticised the ] of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's report on its investigation into the controversy.<ref>Harrabin, Roger, "", '']'', 31 March 2010.</ref> '']'' reported that Dr. Paul Dennis, a climate scientist, had posted an account on the blog of his interview with the police concerning the unauthorized release of the emails from the ].<ref>'']'', "", 5 February 2010.</ref>


==External links==
*

]
]
]

]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

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.