His last day will be December 21st, 2009. Dot Earth can be viewed here.
I can’t say I’m surprised. About a month ago, I had an email exchange with Andy on this subject, where he shared with me that he might leave.
While I often disagree with Andy’s postings, I will say that he has been extraordinarily civil to me and also to Steve McIntyre, compared to some others in the same business of writing about climate (you know who you are). He has never not responded to an email I’ve sent him.
He’s been a worthy opponent, let’s hope that whomever replaces him (if there is a replacement, NYT is doing major staffing cutbacks and employee buyouts) has the same or higher standards of conduct.
He cites frustration with journalism and also personal fatigue after routinely working virtually 24/7 in recent years. This I can understand. Keeping WUWT running these days demands similar efforts.
Yale Climate and Media Forum has more details.
On behalf of WUWT and it’s community, please join me in wishing Mr. Revkin good health and success in his next venture. – Anthony Watts
============
Note to commenters: I’m only saying this so that none of you do.
“In a way, this is cheering news” or variants of that CRU message will not be tolerated in comments.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Remaining civil in the course of heated debate is difficult. Good luck Andy.
I have no reason to dislike Andy Revkin, nor to suggest that his motives are other than those he’s told us about, but the elephant in the room is the CRU e-mails that gave the impression that the hockey team thought they had him in their pocket. That can’t be good for a journalists ego.
Good luck for the future Andy.
‘heh’ 🙂
Well good luck to Mr. Revkin. I can only hope that all of this has made an impact on his preconceptions and that he will become more skeptical of his sources.
It might be interesting (and provocative) to have Andy write an occasional post for WUWT! 😉
Let’s hope he takes his time off to put down all the juicy details of his life as a talking head for the Warmers in his new book deal and conferences (which I’m sure he will get).
Attn.: Any knowlegeable person on this blog:
Could you please tell me the following figures?
(1) Total number of researchers that appear in the disclosed CRU mails, and
(2) Of which, the number of people who were authors of IPCC Assessment Reports.
I need these figures to convey a picture of the CRU affair to the general public as exactly as possible. Thanks in advance.
REPLY: see Warwick Hughes blog, link at right sidebar, he has a breakdown and map – Anthony
The linked article indicates that he will probably continue DOT Earth, so he may not be actually disappearing from the pages.
“He is expected to continue working on his popular Dotearth blog through The Times, though details are still being arranged.”
If this is true, not sure what will actually change.
Good luck Andy.
Good luck, Andy. I’m sure the AP’s Seth Borenstein is eyeing your job…
Cheers
I think it’s a testimony to Andy’s impartiality that he generally managed to get both sides upset with him!
Tim (15:49:31) :
It might be interesting (and provocative) to have Andy write an occasional post for WUWT! ;-)’
I’ll second that motion.
Good Luck to Andy. He’s been a decent honorable human being in all my interactions with him.
It’s going to take more than that to turn that NYT fish wrap around.
Civil debate with the issue can only go further to better understanding. I have had to pleasure to disagree with Mr. Revkin and look forward to debating with his replacement.
jpl
I am not going to take a shot at him. I won’t even respond in a personal way.
When companies are bleeding as is the Times with a 30% drop in ad revenue, costs get cut and we see people bail.
I can’t imagine the NYT hasn’t pinched money. Everything from playing games on reimbursement of expenses to firings. People get an offer and the split. Even nasty companies are a better place to work when they operate in the black then when they are deep in the red.
Dot Earth’s ‘About’ begins:
“By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life.”
Take out the word ‘climate’ and we still have an important issue, and a worthy basis for a discussion. If indeed Mr Revkin has been swept up by – and now washed up by – the climate alarmism overwhelming the environment movement, then I have full sympathy. The 400 year history of modern science has given us some basis for trust – now this trust has been abused and many folks with open minds must now be feeling that they have been conned. It is a credit to Anthony to deal with this news as he has.
If we have reason to trust science, then we cant say the same for the MSM. Here is Lord Monckton, a little belligerent perhaps, with a willing participant in a socratic dialogue highlighting the success of the other great partners in this con, the press:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk&hl=en_GB&fs=1&]
I wish Andy all the best for the future.
I also very much hope that, in this time of great turmoil, he can seek some comfort in his music.
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/11/17_The_Lives_of_Others%3A_Andy_Revkin.html
Although we would apparently be on different sides of the fence, so to speak, I can understand the stress I think he feels. This should never have become a fight, but rather a rational scientific discussion.
It is sad to say that, on climate, we seem to have given birth to a Siamese twin, in which science and politics are horribly conjoined. I pray that the two may be successfully separated and that both individuals may survive and lead healthy, independent lives.
I’m sorry, but a polite purveyor of AGW propaganda who defers to “the gang of twelve” instead of seriously looking into the subject using his own reasoning capacity is not cause for congratulations or celebration of anything but his leaving. Read the CRU exchanges and tell me he wasn’t in their pockets.
The NYT with this fellow at the environmental helm has done more than its share to propagate the “junk science” we all bemoan and he’ll get no “hail, good fellow” salute from me. Magnanimity to the point of hypocrisy rings false. Try and remember that we would not be in this mess had professionals of all stripes not chosen professional civility over rudeness when the absurd foundations of AGW were originally laid down.
CH
The column noting that the earth had not warmed for ten years was timely and observant, but not what “the team” and the old gray lady wanted. Hope you find a place to practice your writing skills. There is a need for writers who can hug the middle of the discussion, and avoid the shouting at the extremes. Go for it.
I choose to believe that Mr Revkin is a man with a conscience, and that he reached a point beyond which he can tolerate. I hope that he will cease being a shill for AGWers.
Never mind Andy Revkin. I am very grateful for your efforts, Anthony, and wish I was knowledgeable enough to help you. What you are doing has been invaluable!!
Best wishes and good luck Mr. Revkin.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/revkin_taking_nyt_buyout.php
Was offered a buyout?
Maybe he can squeeze in a story of defeat of the alarmists at Copenhagen before he takes his shoebox of stuff out on the weekend.
Tim (15:49:31) :
I’ll agree also. It would be very interesting to get a well considered post from him, as told by a journalist retelling the unfolding history as he saw it, (i.e.: from a journalists point of view).