Okay, it's only in the comments and it's not entirely favorable but good to know we're not writing in a vacuum.
Curtis Brainard writes about the The New York Times cancellation of its' Green Blog and first comment gives Daily Kos Eco an also ran mention.
You're not alone in your outrage. While we'd agree there's no way this move is justified, clearly NYT thought it was from their cost/benefit view. There just aren't enough readers/viewers addicted to or comfortably conversant in the sciences. Disastrously sad, but sadly true.my emphasis
There are other on-line sources for climate science, flavored for those with highly technical bents, or for those with political focus, and even for those still in the denier 'community.' Other basic science, however, is harder to get to. SciAm lost me decades ago when its narrative dropped to ~Grade 6 level, gee-whizzery; AAAS, NAS, AGU, NOAA, USGS, Nature, et al., all offer RSS feeds with highly variable content; DailyKos even has its science-specific groups that aren't always rigorous in spanning content accuracy and interest. NYT matched the Venn Diagram overlap between wonky science and societal impact, and with marked attention to accuracy -- aided by commenters. Wondering if we'll ever see the like again. Remember the Sputnik years when science was suddenly sexy? Sigh. I do. For a few of us, it still is.
Long a hardcopy subscriber, I'm now with you all daily via RSS. I'll be following your sci/env reporting critiques carefully! Thanks for doing that valuable work in these difficult times.
Not Earth shattering just put this in the category of thought some of you might be interested.