Actually, it's more about the business model for Junkk's survival.
News pay walls? Consumer says no
But I did see an opening for some input on the calibre of science reporting.
As one with a blog that sifts a lot of 'good enough', if often wildly disparate 'free' in a niche area (green issues) to try and get to something approaching objective fact in matters scientific, and yet more reasonable commentary via subjective analysis that is clear of overt agendas, I'd say amen to most of that.
However, looking at this paper's own coverage on some plucky types' hike in the chilly wastes dipping rulers in the water, and comparing it with other reports, it is often not very easy.
BBC - Ice sheet melt threat reassessed
BBC - Relief as Arctic quest concludes - two aircraft landed on the floating Arctic ice to collect Pen Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley.
Telegraph - Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezing
BBC - The Catlin Arctic Survey: daring, yes, but is the science any good?
Indy - Melting ice could cause gravity shift - My favourite word, 'could', sets the tone
Gaurdian - NEW - Arctic explorers end mission to survey sea ice
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.