| Revision as of 05:28, 29 April 2010 editYilloslime (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,467 edits If this cruft must be hear--and I for one don't think it should be--lets at least put in its own section, and make clear that none of them actually discuss the blog in depth← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:30, 29 April 2010 edit undoCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Mentions in the mainstream press: NPOV the descriptionNext edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| ==Mentions in the mainstream press== | ==Mentions in the mainstream press== | ||
| Mainstream press articles have mentioned the blog: | |||
| *], 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> | *], 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> | *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> | ||
Revision as of 05:30, 29 April 2010
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged into The Hockey Stick Illusion. (Discuss) Proposed since April 2010. |
| An editor has nominated this article for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it.Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. For more information, see the guide to deletion. Find sources: "Bishop Hill" blog – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FBishop+Hill+%28blog%29%5D%5DAFD |
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Type of site | Blog |
|---|---|
| Created by | Andrew Montford |
| URL | http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ |
Bishop Hill is a blog operated by Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Philip Campbell, the editor in chief of Nature resigned from the Independent Climate Change Email Review after Bishop Hill (and Channel 4) publicized an interview he'd given in the Chinese media in which he stated that there was no evidence to suggest a coverup.
Mentions in the mainstream press
Mainstream press articles have mentioned the blog:
- Andrew Orlowski, writing for The Register, noted that the blog was one of several to initially report the story that Lord Oxburgh had been choosen by the University of East Anglia to head its enquiry into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.
- The BBC noted that the blog had criticised the findings of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's report on its investigation into the controversy.
- The Daily Mail reported that Dr. Paul Dennis, a climate scientist, had posted an account on the blog of his interview with the police concerning their investigation into the unauthorized release of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit.
- James Delingpole noted in his The Daily Telegraph blog that the site had reported that the Climate Outreach and Information Network was funded by the British government to try to influence the debate on global warming.
- Delingpole also has noted Bishop Hill's commentary on the CRU email controversy and criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
External links
References
- Webster, Ben (2010-03-23). "Lord Oxburgh, the climate science peer, 'has a conflict of interest'". timesonline.co.uk. The Times. Retrieved 2010-04-22.
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.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - Matt Ridley, "The global warming guerrillas", The Spectator, 3 February 2010.
- Batty, David (12 February 2010). "Climate emails review panellist quits after his impartiality questioned". www.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Orlowski, Andrew (26th March 2010). "Anglia defends Oxburgh's eco network ties". The Register. Retrieved 12 April 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Harrabin, Roger, "Climate science must be more open, say MPs", BBC News, 31 March 2010.
- The Daily Mail, "Police question global warming 'sceptic' scientist over 'Climategate' email leak", 5 February 2010.
- Delingpole, James (November 25, 2009). "Climategate: how they all squirmed". www.blogs.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 12 April 2010.
- Delingpole, James (November 27, 2009). "Climategate: the whitewash begins". The Telegraph. Retrieved 20 April 2010.
- Delingpole, James (February 11, 2010). "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert". jamesdelingpole.com. Retrieved 13 April 2010.