Andy Revkin to leave Dot Earth and NYT

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 14, 2009 3:42 pm

Remaining civil in the course of heated debate is difficult. Good luck Andy.

December 14, 2009 3:44 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 3:44 pm

‘heh’ 🙂

December 14, 2009 3:46 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 3:49 pm

It might be interesting (and provocative) to have Andy write an occasional post for WUWT! 😉

December 14, 2009 3:52 pm

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).

December 14, 2009 3:54 pm

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

December 14, 2009 3:54 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 3:54 pm

Good luck Andy.

December 14, 2009 3:55 pm

Good luck, Andy. I’m sure the AP’s Seth Borenstein is eyeing your job…

December 14, 2009 3:56 pm

I think it’s a testimony to Andy’s impartiality that he generally managed to get both sides upset with him!

old construction worker
December 14, 2009 4:00 pm

Tim (15:49:31) :
It might be interesting (and provocative) to have Andy write an occasional post for WUWT! ;-)’
I’ll second that motion.

December 14, 2009 4:01 pm

Good Luck to Andy. He’s been a decent honorable human being in all my interactions with him.

December 14, 2009 4:01 pm

It’s going to take more than that to turn that NYT fish wrap around.

December 14, 2009 4:08 pm

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.

Henry chance
December 14, 2009 4:09 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 4:09 pm

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:

December 14, 2009 4:10 pm

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.
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.

Claude Harvey
December 14, 2009 4:13 pm

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.

rb Wright
December 14, 2009 4:13 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 4:15 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 4:16 pm

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!!

December 14, 2009 4:16 pm

Best wishes and good luck Mr. Revkin.

Henry chance
December 14, 2009 4:18 pm
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.

Greg Cavanagh
December 14, 2009 4:18 pm

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).

Chris H
December 14, 2009 4:19 pm

Good luck to Andy. Interesting to see how he will be replaced. A new chapter in the media coverage of climate science and climate change is about to begin.

Harold Ambler
December 14, 2009 4:20 pm

Mr. Revkin used the words “unauthorized” in two separate blog posts during the last ten days to describe the release of Climategate e-mails and other documents.
I sent him two e-mails asking whether he had knowledge that the document release was an inside job rather than an incidence of hacking. These were the first two e-mails from me that Mr. Revkin did not return.
He is busy, in the extreme, with Copenhagen, Climategate, and his career change, and that is likely the sole reason for not getting back to me.
Nonetheless, the mere fact that he switched from reporting that the e-mails had been hacked to describing them as an “unauthorized release” strikes me as being of note.

Another Mike D
December 14, 2009 4:21 pm

I may have disagreed with some of his conclusions, but was maintained a civil tone and seemed willing to discuss items with those who disagrees with him. The civil discourse will be lessened in his absence. Best of luck in your new endeavours, Andy.

December 14, 2009 4:22 pm

ahahaha… Things are looking up for Mr. Revkin. I hear former vice president and acclaimed Nobel laureate, Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, needs a personal journalist.

Another Mike D
December 14, 2009 4:22 pm

egad. “but he was one who maintained…”, and “those who disagreed with him…”.
I hope things go better for him than they did for my quick proofread!

Dennis Wingo
December 14, 2009 4:26 pm

REPLY: see Warwick Hughes blog, link at right sidebar, he has a breakdown and map – Anthony
Has anyone taken these names and cross correlated them to the spagetti graph that is in the Wegman report where he showed the dangerous interrelationships that his team thought compromised the peer review process?

December 14, 2009 4:28 pm

Coincidentally, Toronto-based AGW hawk John Moore announced today that he is giving up:
From reading his somewhat bitter commentary, it seems that Moore’s reasons are rather different from Revkin’s.

Steve Fitzpatrick
December 14, 2009 4:45 pm

No surprise here. Mr. Revkin was described as unreliable (AKA willing to actually listen to what the other side says) in one of the emails.
I wish him clear thinking and good luck.

December 14, 2009 4:46 pm

I’ve been following dotearth for a couple of years now. And I’ve defended Andy Revkin on many occasions and there is nothing in the CRU emails that has changed my mind. He allows dissenting views equal time in comments which is a rarity in a venue that warmists think they own. He receives much flak for this.
Andy has a huge roll-o-dex and, yes, it’s filled with ‘consensus scientists’ but it also lists many dissenting voices whom he contacts for input. I think Andy reflected the cw of the past decade or so about the consensus but he never indicated he believed that the science itself was totally settled. He often pointed out uncertainties which everyone simply ignored.
I think as anyone with integrity who has been so deeply involved in this issue, Andy has been a bit shaken by the last few weeks.
He, long before anyone else started discussing the possibility, got flack for even bringing up the possibility that the temperature data might be compromised (I believe this was in a question he had posed to a scientist).
He read the analysis of why it’s more probable the emails/data were leaked rather than hacked and did not dismiss it. If I’m remembering correctly (I didn’t save it) I saw a phrase in a piece he did where he spoke of ‘unauthorized release’ instead of ‘hacked’ or ‘stolen’. When I went back to it a day or two later the phrase was no longer there. Editors, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.
Anyway, I’m sorry he’s leaving. And, damn, I wish him well.

John M
December 14, 2009 4:47 pm

I kind of felt sorry for Revkin, especially recently. I remember about a year ago, some of his regulars thought it was cute to brag about “denier censoring software” or some such, and would post at the end of their comment that they were “protected” by it. Sort of like the little kid with the fingers in the ears screaming “I’m not listening”.
But more recently, the true believers started to get belligerent with him because he was “too tolerant” of opposing views. Some even threatened to stop reading his blog if he didn’t start banning the skeptics.
These are the same ones who are now shocked and distressed that Kookinhagen is going down the drain. How could that happen!?!?
You know, the “I can’t understand how Nixon won, everyone I know voted for McGovern” crowd.

December 14, 2009 4:51 pm

Unless I’m mistaken, he never commented on the ‘cutoff’ email from Schlesinger. That is very disappointing. Could it have played a role in this decision, now ?

December 14, 2009 4:53 pm

Revkin got an unwitting vote of integrity from Michael Mann in the emails:
p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like

slow to follow
December 14, 2009 4:53 pm

Claude Harvey (16:13:17)
Seconded – IMO the press have singularly failed the public on this issue.

December 14, 2009 4:53 pm

What does Al Gore know about the polar ice caps?
Not too much according to the scientist he references in his talking notes:

December 14, 2009 4:57 pm

Quote: “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.”
The NYT can ill afford to lose anyone with a high standard of conduct since they have so few.
Just an observation.

December 14, 2009 5:02 pm

Given the polarization around this issue, Andy Revkin has done a pretty good job allowing all perspectives an opportunity to present their cases on his blog. Andy is no Joe Romm. Andy is a gentleman.

Paul Penrose
December 14, 2009 5:03 pm

While I have not agreed with much of what Andy has written over the years, I personally wish him happiness and success in the future.

December 14, 2009 5:13 pm

Unfortunate. I found Mr. Revkin’s columns to be the only ones from the warmist side that didn’t make me vomit. (Though, like Anthony I mostly disagree with his positions) His style was indeed professional. I am certain will will be seeing more from him however, as he is too talented to be cut completely loose. NY Times’s loss really.
Good luck Mr. Revkin.

George Crews
December 14, 2009 5:16 pm

IMHO, Andy is a very good and honest journalist. I wish him continued success.
George Crews

George E. Smith
December 14, 2009 5:24 pm

Well I’m also of mixed feelings on Andy’s leaving. Like Anthony’s experience, Andy Revkin has always been civil with me. Back when Marc Morano, was working in Senatore Inhofe’s Office, and rounded up the “gang of 400” including me; which later became over 700, Andy held a discussion on his blog to let the “two sides” have at it. That was my first meetings with some popular noms de plume; some of which I came to revere like a hangnail or upcoming root canal.
Well I couldn’t work for an outfit, that had an agenda that wasn’t bringing the truth to their readership, so I’m not surprised that Andy isn’t going to continue there; for whatever reason.
I can only hope that once off the deck of that sinking ship, Andy will get some common sense. I’m not going to denigrate his position on global population. That may be a world problem, and it certainly interacts with human influence on the planet; but Andy; it is an entirely separate issue from man’s emanations particularly CO2 affecting the climate in any serious fashion.
Mass human starvation is a more serious problem than whether Communist Red Chinese container ships, can fit under the cranes, at the Oakland Docks, 40 years from now, due to sea level rise in San Francisco Bay. Hey Mr Chinese shipping magnate; here’s an idea for you; free of charge.
Build your future ships like submarines are built so you can flood them and sink them at the docks to fit under the cranes. Should be a piece of cake for some enterprising new naval architect.

December 14, 2009 5:27 pm

OT Why the lineups in Copenhagen? Weird.
“What was behind the monumental screw-up? A staggering inability to do maths. The conference centre has a maximum capacity of 15,000, yet NGOs alone were allowed to register 20,000 delegates. That’s not counting the 5000 members of the media, nor the 7000 staffers who are running the place, totalling 32,000 before you even get to the people who are meant to be doing the real work here: the negotiators. ”—a-stagger.html

December 14, 2009 5:30 pm

Al had a 30 year span during which none of his deliberate and otherwise lies were ever checked by his adoring press. And when such were exposed, the disclosure was buried in Friday’s afternoon edition near the end. He got used to that as well as always appearing on talk shows with abetting hosts or with hosts who were not familiar enough with the facts to correct his lies when he uttered them; to wit, last week stating that all of the climategate emails were “over 10 years old”.

December 14, 2009 5:35 pm

off topic, but this is such a wonderful, comedic look at hopenhagen, i’ll dedicate it to revkin, as an example of terrific writing on the subject:
UK Times: AA Gill: The great green land grab
Amid the oil barons, islanders and idealists in bad shoes, the eco-lobby has annexed not just the climate conference, but the world

December 14, 2009 5:36 pm

I can agree to disagree.
Too bad the rest of the ‘settled’ ones cannot.
Good luck, Andy.

December 14, 2009 5:36 pm

I would be interested in Alan Carlin’s comment about Revkin.
What does Revkin’s leaving mean about the impact Climategate has had on the gray rag itself. Is the NYT punting, to a large degree? I guess Revkin’s replacement (if any) will afford a hint. Hey, how about a “skeptic”?! Maybe a little too text bookish “journalistic” to hope for?
I forgot. Who was Revkin’s tag-team partner? Maybe he’d like to be the next Alarmist writer to try his hand?
I’ll bet he put those hours in…he’d have to to keep justifying such unfounded “Belief’s”. It would have taken a lot less effort to simply be a proper “journalist” and check the wild claims of the Alarmists. And, Anthony, and others, would have gotten much more rest, also!
No doubt Revkin’s writing a book on his valiant efforts to save the world. Hurry up, before we burn up!

December 14, 2009 5:36 pm

I would like to be as magnanimous as Herr Doktor Watts and a lot of the commenters, but I am in the business of making carbon based fuels.
Revkin has spent the last decade trying to put me (and a bunch of folks in West Virginia, for that matter) out of business because of some quasi-religious fascistic fervor about “warming” and a trumped-up connection to CO2.
“Civility” might win points for those of you with no skin in the game, but I’ve got 30 years of my life invested in oil & gas (and 22 issued US Patents); I revile Revkin and every one of his miserable ilk. May they live long enough to feel the chilly wrath of the Almighty, who doesn’t cotton to overweening Hubris.
Good riddance, Revkin. Hope you took the buyout in cash.

December 14, 2009 5:43 pm

Revkin has a chance now to become the next Woodward & Bernstein if he chooses to try. Blowing up global warming could make him famous. Will he? I doubt it….

December 14, 2009 5:48 pm

I wonder why these ‘news people’ are quitting?

Chris H
December 14, 2009 5:50 pm

Another voice for scientific transparency in the MSM as columnist Lysiane Gagnon of the Globe and Mail refuses to be cowed by the “consensus”.

December 14, 2009 5:51 pm

I wonder if there is an ‘insiders’ book in the offing. It would be very nice to know how the ‘Team’ briefed members of the media.

December 14, 2009 5:53 pm

I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

– Andy
Of course not, Andy, of course not.

December 14, 2009 5:53 pm

I like to think: Revkin was actually convinced the climate was changing, and has had his eyes opened in the last 4 weeks or so. It was a slow awakening, but he may have written one or many articles recently to have all of them bounced back to his desk with instructions to revise extensively and toe the line. It was easy for him to believe that the New york Times was really more a neutral source of information when he was a true believer in the cause, but perhaps when his belief finally was shaken, and he tried to speak out they silenced him, and that veil was removed from his eyes. Perhaps he will write a book, and name some names.
On the other hand, the New york Times may have planned to can him because of the “big cut-off” threat from the Global Warming High Priests was going to shut down the Times’ connection to the scare stories it needs to sell a few more copies of it’s fish-paper wrapping. While Revkin perhaps has had an awakening, we all know there is no hope for the New York Times.
Anyways, I am glad to hear he was an honest dealer when you communicated with him.

NZ Willy
December 14, 2009 5:58 pm

OT: IARC-JAXA’s gone nutty, rolled back to December 10. Wonder what’s up?

December 14, 2009 6:01 pm

OT, but then again
Climategate: The Ailing ‘Mainstream’ Media Are Committing Suicide by Ignoring The Scoop of the Century

December 14, 2009 6:02 pm

And it won’t be long before the warmists go after Susan Boyle because of the CO2 she gives off while singing 🙂

R Shearer
December 14, 2009 6:11 pm

What would Phil Jones say and do in a similar situation? Anthony, you are a gentleman.

December 14, 2009 6:12 pm

Just a side note on the article I posted;
If every news paper in America had plastered on the front of them tomorrow, “Climategate”, Every news paper would be sold out in a matter of hours, and the bonuses to the journalists would start rolling in.

Jack in Oregon
December 14, 2009 6:15 pm

Gore in retreat at Hopenhagen
“…However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore…”

December 14, 2009 6:23 pm

You could sense the weariness in some of Andy’s recent reporting I think – quite Tim Russert-like:
“Person A says this …. What do readers think?”
That said, some of the topics were good and some of the discussions in readers comments were quite lively, and they were basically unfiltered for all the world to see. Andy was always polite to all participants.
Good luck to Andy in his future endeavours, and here’s hoping it’s a job that doesn’t feel like a straightjacket!

joseph murphy
December 14, 2009 6:24 pm

Like others have said, I would love to see Mr. Revkin make a post here. I would have never found this site if I were not interested in both sides of the issue.

Indiana Bones
December 14, 2009 6:30 pm

I join Anthony in wishing Andy the very best. He has been put through an unconscionable wringer in meeting the expectations of his mandate. Worse, recently he was out and out threatened by a punk professor at U of Illinois, Michael Schlesinger:
“The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists … I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.”
It is my contention that along with data manipulators, fabricators and liars, punks like Schlesinger be made to answer for their skulduggery.–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0Zii7uncm

December 14, 2009 6:44 pm

FWIW, it should be “its community,” not “it’s community” in the closing of your tribute.
REPLY: No, it’s “community”. You just didn’t get the memo. 😉 Fixed thanks -A

December 14, 2009 6:44 pm

Yes, let’s see Andrew write up a post. Would we need to take up a collection to pay him? After all, he is an out-of-work professional

December 14, 2009 6:47 pm

This debate would be called Dumb and Dumber, but Palin would surely win.
Palin Vs. Gore: Oceans Apart

December 14, 2009 6:52 pm

Don’t be a stranger Andy!

Ed Scott
December 14, 2009 6:59 pm

Glenn Beck Reports On COP 15

December 14, 2009 6:59 pm
December 14, 2009 7:13 pm

AGW’s ball of wax is melting, melting.
[NYT’s] Revkin has jumped (or, was pushed; see WUWT~), and now Moore has deserted the AGW Ark of Hope**.
“*John Moore is the host of Moore in the Morning on Newstalk 1010 Toronto.”
>> The AGW rats are jumping off Mao Stlong (Canadian “Liberal leader” Bob Lae’s Uncke Mo) Strong’s/O’s Ark of Hope**.
Here’s Moore’s bitter Parthian shot as he gallumphs off into his cyberAGWsunset:
>> “And so with those words I leave the climate change cause to those who genuinely care — although I do hope that one day the deniers get the upbraiding they deserve.”
“*John Moore: Why I don’t care about global warming”
**ARK OF HOPE: The Ark of the New Age Covenant
The Ark of Hope, the vessel designed to carry the Earth Charter, is as unholy … [1] Maurice Strong, a founding co-chairman of the Earth Charter Commission and …
“~Andy Revkin to leave Dot Earth and NYT”

December 14, 2009 7:16 pm

There is no difference between Revkin and the crook who drives the getaway car at a bank robbery. Revkin is an enabler. Did he do any investigative reporting? No.
Go read TJA (17:53:23) a few posts back for a Revkin quote illustrating how he views Steve McIntyre. McIntyre has been more patient with these scammers than any of them deserve, but Revkin gives him a backhanded dismissal. That was so polite of Revkin.
No, Revkin doesn’t deserve any praise for being an enabler of the biggerst scam of the last 200 years.

December 14, 2009 7:20 pm

dotearth, although an alarmist blog, has been very fair in letting skeptic readers post their comments. Some comments have been highly informative and I’ve learnt a great deal.
The editors have left a lot to be desired though. Those “highlight” comments chosen by them were predominately alarmist, and most were pretty lame too.

December 14, 2009 7:24 pm

I, too, noted attempts on the part of Mr. Revkin to be fair. For that, I salute him and wish him well.

December 14, 2009 7:24 pm

I canceled my subscription to the Economist after 25 years. I was disgusted that they swallowed the anthropogenic global warming hoax – hook line and stinker.
I guess there are many many people who have done the same with their news print subscriptions. After reading the umpteenth “end-of-the-word” weekly or daily climate eco-disaster story one eventually gets bored and has to ask oneself if it is worth paying for the same old re-runs of the same old crap – especially when you know it is certainly not even true – none if it!
This whole story is totally analogous to the “Pirate Radio” rock stations of the North Sea – they played the music people wanted to hear – rock ‘n roll – meanwhile the mainstream radio stations controlled by the government refused to do so….and the rest is history.

One day they will make a movie about the “pirate blogs” of the 00’s like WUWT and call it “Climategate”…the story about how the entire world became completely sick of mainstream media and began to ignore MSM and turn to pirate climate stations for the TRUTH …..”GOVERNMENTS LOATH PEOPLE BEING FREE!”…. a group of loud rebellious scientists who risked everything….led by a renegade COUNT….Lord Monckton….Who declared war on Government controlled climate propaganda!!!

December 14, 2009 7:25 pm

Good luck Andy

December 14, 2009 7:31 pm

Good luck Andy. Perhaps the threat was the last straw. I wouldn’t blame him for bailing on this. He appears to have been a pawn in a bigger game that he wasn’t aware of. I can see a Pulitzer in the future if he tells his side of the story.

Indiana Bones
December 14, 2009 7:39 pm

Jack in Oregon (18:15:24) :
Gore in retreat at Hopenhagen

Renamed “Can’t Copenhagen.”

Count de Money
December 14, 2009 7:47 pm

I imagine that Mr. Revkin is somewhat disillusioned after finding out what his sources were saying about him behind his back. Perhaps in future endeavors, he should remember the old journalism saying: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
I will follow Mr. Watts’ lead and wish him good luck.

December 14, 2009 7:57 pm

OT: IARC-JAXA’s gone nutty, rolled back to December 10. Wonder what’s up
i have an even better one:
it’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Jeff L
December 14, 2009 8:24 pm

Best of luck to you, Mr. Revkin. We certainly need more civility in this world & from the description Anthony gives, it sounds like you bring it.
Hey All – we should also give a shout out for Anthony – as he alludes to at the top – for working 24/7 on WUWT ! He is a great asset to all of us

December 14, 2009 8:37 pm

I stopped subscribing to the NYT 3 years ago. Not because of Andy. I still chechk in on his blog. He seems a decent sort. A little silly sometimes, but a good sort nonetheless. Well silly most of the time actually. But I hope this was his decision and I wish him and his family well.

December 14, 2009 8:38 pm

The phrase “don’t kill the messenger” applies in textbook manner to a temperamentally left-leaning reporter who is up against perfectly logical skepticism in opposition to a theory supported by DOZENS of the very top hard scientific academies in existence with nary a one coming out against it. From the posts here I take it that he stands out from other journalists in not having been as snide or vicious as the rest.
Be it noted that other consensus scientific scandals have happened with almost no hat tip to skeptics whatsoever. The Fat Scare is one that continues to this day, one that like AGW tries to simplify a highly complex system down to a single variable: saturated fat (and its effect on cholesterol-laden arterial plaques). A similar agenda-obsessed small group of researchers were involved (Ancel Keys at the UofMN seen here on the cover of Time: As soon as his theory took hold, the food pyramid appeared, rapidly followed by an obesity epidemic which many suspect is due to the replacement of dietary fat by insulin
Cold Fusion? Didn’t work. End of story. No influence of skeptics on mainstream culture.
Inside job 9/11? Didn’t make sense. Plane wreckage found on lawn of Pentagon. No influence of skeptics on mainstream culture.
No moon landing? Didn’t make sense. Retroreflector shines laser beams back. No influence of skeptics on mainstream culture.
AIDS not caused by HIV? Didn’t make sense. Needle pricks lead to it. No influence of skeptics on mainstream culture.
Global Warming not caused by man? Actually made sense. Skeptics had huge influence on mainstream culture.

R. Craigen
December 14, 2009 8:43 pm

I like Tim’s suggestion that Andy post an article or two here. I won’t speak for Anthony but I imagine he’d be game, though I doubt he can offer any remuneration let alone the kind of maintenance to which Andy has become accustomed.
Andy, if you read this, I’m neither admirer nor detractor. Fact is I haven’t seen much of your work, and have no opinion. But if a piece by you appears here I promise to read it. From all I do know of you, it is my guess that you realize that being described as “unreliable” in the recent context amounts to a journalistic badge of honor. It’s certainly gotten my attention. May you continue to be unreliable (as anyone else’s mouthpiece). You have a reputation as an independent thinker — may that reputation be more deserved in the future than in the past.
In good faith, send Anthony something to post. I’ll suggest first making an effort to fill your head with some raw factual material that has a chance counterbalance what it has been fed in the past. Mix well with what you already know, and write something even MORE unreliable than even the CRU crowd (or us, for that matter) could imagine.
Here are two excellent places to start: This whimsical presentation of Holocene ice core data from central Iceland (consider: what does a “normal” or “optimal” world climate look like?) and Co2Science’s massive facts-only archive of peer-reviewed science about the effects of higher levels of everyone’s favourite GHG (consider: what do plants know about “normal” that CRU/IPCC et al appear not to understand?).
I look forward to your insights on these matters.

December 14, 2009 9:02 pm

I’m with Claude Harvey and hareynolds, but more so. I have only a little time to devote to this topic but I could (as I am sure most WUWT readers did) see through the lying and deception in an instant. Any journalist, scratch that, literate individual could discern this as well.
For me then, only adherence to ideology at any cost, exacted from any number of people, in order to make the world as he wanted it to be can underly his willful ignorance. The spiritual vaccuousness and emotional neediness of the climate slaves is evocative of the communist Left in the middle of our last century. As the news of tens of millions dead and displaced (rivaling Nazi atrocities) began to surface, endless strawmen were constructed by elite leftists for an audience of willing followers to explain why this “wasn’t true communism”. Capitalism was certain to die and a suitable replacement must be produced in the form of a newer, purer, communist ideal.
The best I can muster for my wish to Mr. Revkin is God speed ….into oblivion. Should he chooses to act the trubidor of yet another dehumanizing ideology …may failure and disgrace fid him promptly.

December 14, 2009 9:39 pm

Andy was one of the few people in this debate who could bring both sides to the table in a civil discussion. While he will continue to blog on climate issues, his reporting will be missed.

December 14, 2009 9:57 pm

Jeremy wrote:
“One day they will make a movie about the “pirate blogs” of the 00’s like WUWT and call it “Climategate”…the story about how the entire world became completely sick of mainstream media and began to ignore MSM and turn to pirate climate stations for the TRUTH …..”GOVERNMENTS LOATH PEOPLE BEING FREE!””
Curious take: bollocks on Revkin’s head!
Conservative Punk on “GLOBAL WARMING R.I.P.”:
Al Gore:

December 14, 2009 10:02 pm

Jeremy — OT, but I also canceled my Economist subscription because their usual dash of healthy skepticism was thrown completely overboard whenever the subject of AGW came up.

December 14, 2009 10:10 pm

I wish Andy good health, but if his next venture is remotely like his last one I cannot wish him success. I can only hope he becomes more objective.

December 14, 2009 10:34 pm

i hope, it was his own decision and not pressure from his employer generated by michael schlesinger and team who threatened him.

December 14, 2009 10:41 pm

Out of curiosity, I went to Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog and I must say the the NY Times blog page layout is very appealing and easy to read.

J. Peden
December 14, 2009 10:49 pm

Best wishes and good luck, Andy. I was always impressed with your tolerance towards allowing the AGW “believers” to post at your blog. /joke – the believers were always demanding that Andy cut down the “deniers”.

December 14, 2009 10:59 pm

Andrew just remember that you might find friends in odd places [here].
We are about the truth here and that is what journalism is also about.
Maybe your next gig won’t tax you so much because the subject is hopefully less shady than dealing with the likes of Mann, Hansen, and Jones.
Regardless…here’s wishing you well. All the best.
Norfolk, VA, USA

joshua corning
December 14, 2009 11:03 pm

“In a way, this is cheering news” or variants of that CRU message will not be tolerated in comments.
Actually I would say the opposite. Not that Revkin made a complete 180 still he did do some things in the wake of climate gate that one might even call responsible journalism.

December 14, 2009 11:16 pm

With so much going on and so much to report on the whole arena of global warming and climate change, most reporters would give a significant parts of their anatomy to be reporting on such a hot topic. Why not someone else taking over such a high profile job?
I don’t think its fatigue. I think its a sign that the NYT thinks the whole subject has “jumped the shark”, and become an embarassment.
“Climategate” could well be a watershed in the whole global warming panic.
Perhaps in five or ten years people will be astonished at what was believed with such fervency for the last 15-20 years.
REPLY: Andy and several other employees were offered buyout situations, they are cutting staff, he was forced to make a decision. he made one. – Anthony

December 14, 2009 11:22 pm

Then it shows that the NYT thinks that the climate change hysteria belongs to its past and not its future.

December 14, 2009 11:26 pm

I’d never seen Revkin on video. I find his presentation somewhat tedious and boring rather than controversial but in no way worthy of sober condemnation:

Charles Platt
December 14, 2009 11:30 pm

I am really weary of reading posts implying that “airing both sides of a discussion” is a virtue. This is the great fallacy of modern journalism, and is thankfully ignored by almost every blog in existence. It places journalists in the position of seeking “rebuttal” quotes from people whom they don’t agree with, and who may be uninformed and simply wrong.

Jeff B.
December 14, 2009 11:31 pm

Good luck Mr. Revkin. Maybe you will find the truth once you get out of the NYT cocoon.

December 15, 2009 12:10 am

“The Old Grey Lady” is busy digging her own grave.
Good luck and clear thinking Mr. Revkin.

Jimmy Haigh
December 15, 2009 12:13 am

Does anyone know what the response to Revkin leaving the NYT has been over at RC?

P Gosselin
December 15, 2009 1:31 am

He reminds me of George McFly in the movie Back to the Future.
The bully (Mann) always made him do his homework and treated him like a gopher. Now Andy Revken (McFly) seems to have finally summoned the courage to ball up his fist and hit back.

December 15, 2009 1:56 am

True sceptics respect the right of others to hold contrary views. This is what an open society is about. Best wishes to Andy Revkin, an honest opponent in the global warming debate.

Atomic Hairdryer
December 15, 2009 2:03 am

Good luck Andy, stay ‘unpredictable’ and fight churnalism. If you’ve got a buy-out, sure there’s a book from your experiences of being in the climate wars.

Roger Knights
December 15, 2009 2:22 am

Revkin said he had made his decision to leave two years ago, because he was fatigued.
He stands out only because other journalists have been so much worse. One cheer.

December 15, 2009 3:49 am

Mr Revkin may indeed have fallen prey to the financial difficulties of his employer. The NYT has long since ceased to be an objective reporter and with that comes a lack of credibility and the result is financial distress.
Revkin, who in my opinion trends warmist, now has the double difficulty of writing about a subject that has just lost huge credibility in it’s core sources, for a publication that suffers the same difficulty. It is best that he move on while he still has a modicum of reputation remaining.

Mike Ramsey
December 15, 2009 3:53 am

Journalist are only as good as their sources. Think about a reporter that needs to produce a daily story. How much time do they really have to do independent research? They depend on sources feeding them information.
The politicians know this so when they want to influence public opinion to further the party line, they feed stories to friendly (desperate?) reporters who amplify the message to the public.
Reporters don’t want to be cutoff from their sources so they do their best to keep appearing friendly. The result is the media bias that we all see and complain about.
Of course good reporters cultivate multiple sources and use their good judgment to present a fair and balanced picture to their audience. But that requires a lot of work. It is fair easier to be a shill.

December 15, 2009 4:40 am

Best of luck in your future ventures Mr Revkin.

December 15, 2009 5:09 am

The NYT is sinking fast.
Hopefully his leaving is not a result of the AGW promoter mafia following through on their threats against him.
The promoters, we see clearly now, cannot withstand even mild dissent, much less actual scrutiny.

December 15, 2009 6:05 am

Could Andy Revkin possibly be so disappointed by both Climategate and other similar events that he no longer has the same zest and commitment as before? He may not have become a sceptic, rather have lost his faith and drive.

December 15, 2009 6:23 am

Did he go or was he pushed?
My opinion is that this is a damage limitation exercise – for Revkin and the NYT. Both guilty parties know the brown stuff is going to hit the fan in the coming days, weeks and months because both parties know what they’ve been propagating is fraudulent and that any and all investigations will expose this.
Will the BBC’s Roger Black and Roger Harribin be next – Harribin was exposed by this Sunday’s Mail on Sunday newspaper as having changed BBC news eco stories at the diktat of militant activists (who later crowed about their total control over the BBC’s correspondents).

Paul James
December 15, 2009 6:37 am

Is this true ?
It’s right above the Russian Connection part of the article about 7/8ths of the way down the article in the attached link.
“Last week, Michael Schlesinger, Professor of Atmospheric Studies at the University of Illinois, sent a still cruder threat to Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, accusing him of ‘gutter reportage’, and warning: ‘The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists … I sense that you are about to experience the “Big Cutoff” from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.’ ”
Read more:–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0ZlgrwTTU–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

December 15, 2009 6:56 am

I wish Andy well. Lot of talent there. I’d like to suggest to him that if is wondering how things got to this point, he might want to reflect on the philosophy of “post-modernism”. We hear about post-modern economies and post-modern literature and post-modern philosophy and post-modern politics and post-modern science and… post-modern journalism. “Post Modernism” os basically the notion that responsible citizens must make a stand to combat inequality and injustice, that not taking a stand is a political act and neutrality and even-handedness are nothing more than an endorsement of the status quo.
Andy (and perhaps George Monbiot, as well) has discovered the moral bankruptcy of that philosophy. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

December 15, 2009 7:41 am

Anthony, maybe see if he’d want to guest post here … of course, after a vacation. Seriously.

Mike Smith
December 15, 2009 7:41 am

@Dennis Wingo.
Don’t know if you’ll see this but regarding mapping relationships in the emails.
It’s not too difficult if you have the original emails from the dump.
Make yourself a free account on
This is the free Palintir java app that will allow this. Palintir is mindblowing! Check their blogs from the main site to see it in action.
The upload all the emails into
It will take some time but it will be worth it.
I have played with it but haven’t had the time to really learn how to use the app.
Here is a pic: of what I’m talking about.
Palintir will index everything about the emails including the body.
Here is an example of what I’m talking about:
As for Revkin leaving, he deserves the same pat on the back he has given skeptics.

December 15, 2009 8:19 am

Pace University announced this morning that New York Times science and environment correspondent Andrew Revkin will be leaving the paper to become a “Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding” at the University’s Academy for Applied Environmental Studies.

December 15, 2009 9:36 am

So long, Andy. I’m a skeptic and I wish for you what you wish for me. Maybe another trip to Tahiti and a Gauguinian epiphany would be good for you.

December 15, 2009 1:27 pm

P Gosselin (01:31:29) :
He reminds me of George McFly in the movie Back to the Future.
The bully (Mann) always made him do his homework and treated him like a gopher. Now Andy Revken (McFly) seems to have finally summoned the courage to ball up his fist and hit back.

By slinking off the field.
That’ll show ’em.

David Gladstone
December 15, 2009 5:08 pm

I’m glad to see that this is such a love fest for the soon to be departed Mr.Revkin, but I think it’s misplaced here. Too may people are commenting on how nice a guy, he is, how polite! Who cares?! I agree with Claude, his manners mean nothing, it’s his relationship to scientific truth that is at issue to me; it’s the fact that his articles are part of the massive Bernaysian maipulation that’s been working to undermine our sovereignty and individual liberty, as well as imposing huge new taxes that will impoverish us, that make him just like the rest of them, as I see it. No difference between him and Borenstein when it comes to it.
However, in his favor, I will say it’s true that a known enemy is easier to deal with than an unknown one!

December 15, 2009 10:58 pm

NZ Willy (17:58:08) :
OT: IARC-JAXA’s gone nutty, rolled back to December 10. Wonder what’s up?


December 16, 2009 1:46 pm

Science journalism prof at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Tom Yulsman, has long regarded Revkin as his model.
Except that to my knowledge both shared compete ignorance of the media’s distorted reporting of the 2006 Wegman report. Neither read it.
Nor did they read the NAS North report.
Both have a falsely inflated perception of journalists’ honesty. They cannot see through their own deluded authority.

%d bloggers like this: