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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
REPLY: see Warwick Hughes blog, link at right sidebar, he has a breakdown and map – Anthony
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?
Coincidentally, Toronto-based AGW hawk John Moore announced today that he is giving up:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/14/john-moore-why-i-don-t-care-about-global-warming.aspx
From reading his somewhat bitter commentary, it seems that Moore’s reasons are rather different from Revkin’s.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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
Claude Harvey (16:13:17)
Seconded – IMO the press have singularly failed the public on this issue.
OT:
What does Al Gore know about the polar ice caps?
Not too much according to the scientist he references in his talking notes:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
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.
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.
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.
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.
IMHO, Andy is a very good and honest journalist. I wish him continued success.
George Crews
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.
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. ”
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/copenhagen-diaries—a-stagger.html
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”.
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 worldhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6954391.ece
I can agree to disagree.
Too bad the rest of the ‘settled’ ones cannot.
Good luck, Andy.
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!