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.
I, too, noted attempts on the part of Mr. Revkin to be fair. For that, I salute him and wish him well.
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!!!
Good luck Andy
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.
Jack in Oregon (18:15:24) :
Gore in retreat at Hopenhagen
Renamed “Can’t Copenhagen.”
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.
NZ WILLY
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
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
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.
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: http://www.uh.edu/engines/AncelKeys.jpg). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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: http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/246/
GISS: http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/1805/
Obama: http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2082/
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.
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.
i hope, it was his own decision and not pressure from his employer generated by michael schlesinger and team who threatened him.
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.
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”.
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.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“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.
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
Anthony
Then it shows that the NYT thinks that the climate change hysteria belongs to its past and not its future.
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:
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/12/14/world/europe/1247466127962/copenhagen-climate-change-q-a.html
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.