Most recently, he was in the unusual position of covering the emerging “Climategate” controversy over leaked emails from prominent American and British climate scientists, while also being part of the story: In one email, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, warned a colleague to be careful of what he shared with “Andy” because, “He’s not as predictable as we’d like.” (A piece by Times public editor Clark Hoyt recently concluded that Revkin and the paper “handled Climategate appropriately—a story, not a three-alarm story.”
In October, following reports of comments he made about population control on a climate change panel, Revkin drew the ire of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s harsh comments on the air that Revkin should kill himself if he cared so much about cutting back carbon emissions became a widely covered story (“If he really thinks that human beings, in their natural existence, are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth,” Limbaugh asked, “Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself, and help the planet by dying?”)
Earlier, Revkin’s coverage of the Bush administration’s handling of climate change led to a string of breaking stories in 2005 and 2006 about how conservative politics was interfering with science, particularly at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. His story that the Bush administration was trying to restrict public comment by NASA’s top climate expert, Dr. James E. Hansen, long one of the most outspoken scientists on climate change dangers, created a firestorm.
One of Revkin’s passions has been showing science in action, not just writing about it from an armchair. Even before publications started pushing reporters toward multimedia reporting, Revkin carried a camera and video equipment in addition to his reporter’s notebook. He has traveled extensively for his environmental coverage, starting with a trip to Tahiti long ago and including three trips to the Arctic. In 2003, he became the first Times reporter to file stories and photos from the sea ice around the North Pole. He spearheaded a Times series, “The Big Melt,” and one-hour documentary in 2005 on threats to the Arctic. He has also covered major catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami, as well as the September 11 terrorist attack on New York City.
Revkin’s work has received numerous awards, including the National Academies of Sciences’ inaugural Communication Award in 2003 for his global climate change reporting and the American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award in 2002. Last year, he was awarded Columbia University’s prestigious John Chancellor Award for his “dogged reporting” on the environment and climate. He received a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University and earlier graduated from Brown University with a bachelor of science in biology. He has taught at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism and the Bard Center for Environmental Policy.
Revkin has written three books, including a children’s book, “The North Pole Was Here” (2006) and “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” (1992). His prize-winning first book, “The Burning Season” (1990), which chronicled the life of the slain Amazon rain forest activist Chico Mendes, was made into a television movie. Revkin began his career in 1983 at Science Digest before spending a year at the Los Angeles Times. In 1987, he moved to Discover magazine where he spent two years as a senior editor and published his first cover story on climate change. Revkin freelanced and wrote books for a number of years before joining the Times in 1995.
Although intense as a reporter, Revkin is also known for his laid-back approach to life, including his alter-ego as a guitar-playing songwriter who is part of what he calls a “fun retro-rootsy band” known as Uncle Wade. He lives in New York’s Hudson River Valley with his wife and youngest son and also has a grown son who is currently serving in the Israeli army.
[Update: Tom Yulsman, who has known Revkin since the beginning of his career and is now co-director of the Center for Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado, had this to say at the CEJournal blog:

However the Times disguises this change, it's one more chink on its armour, another example to prove that printed media is losing its fight against societal change, another IQ-lowering move that shows, Marathon.wise, that ignorance is stepping ahead. Luckily, in this case Mr. Revkin will fall on his feet and keep on wirking, but for every Revkin there's plenty of news workers that'll have to switch to a more nurturing profession. A sad day for many of us.
#1 Posted by Horacio Salazar, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 02:06 PM
I worked with a fellow nuclear engineer in the '90's whose wife was finishing up her Phd in Molecular biology. One of Revkin's favorite whipping boys at the time was genetically modified plants.
I remember my associate, one day, bringing a "marked up" Revkin article to work. His wife was FURIOUS at the whole content. I managed to convince her NOT to waste her time writing a letter. "Wrestling pigs in mud.." was the phrase. I also pointed out that since the NYT readers were on the left side of the bell curve, it was of no worry what Revkin wrote.
Nothing has changed.
#2 Posted by Dr. Joe Papp, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 05:42 PM
Dr. Papp: So you've judged an entire career by one article that the wife of someone you worked with more than a decade ago showed you?
Would you like to be judged that way?
#3 Posted by Tom Yulsman, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 06:14 PM
In my opinion, Revkin is one of those increasingly rare journalists who actually takes the time to do the homework to get the story correct. I have had the pleasure to deal with Andy a number of times regarding rapid climate change in the Arctic. I always felt that I could talk to Andy openly and without fear of being misrepresented. He will be missed.
#4 Posted by Mark C. Serreze, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 06:46 PM
Glad to hear you will continue with NYT Dot Earth. Best of luck in your new endeavors.
#5 Posted by Westword, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 07:14 PM
I'm sad to hear this-- he's a voice of clarity. I'm glad that he'll continue working on contract.
#6 Posted by Jim, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 07:40 PM
Mark: Thank you for lending your voice here. These days, good journalists like Andy need all the support they can get.
#7 Posted by Tom Yulsman, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 10:53 PM
"One of Revkin's favorite whipping boys at the time was genetically modified plants. "
Some boys deserve to be whipped, and Monsanto's boys top that list.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
GMO's are as complex and potentially dangerous an entity as any there is. We talk about the unplanned effects of natural species introduction and chemical pollutants in our environment, there is no way to calculate the unexpected effects of gene introduction into the earth's species,
http://www.purefood.org/ge/klebsiella.cfm
genes which are someone's intellectual property and thus require a license in order for you to breed a pig or grow grain.
We have no way of quantifying gene expression and, since we are often eating the products of these expressing genes, we have no idea how these products affect our biology when consumed.
We are the gene industry's grand experiment.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 11:26 PM
The book that the article links to Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast is by David Archer. The book of the same title by Andrew Revkin is here.
#9 Posted by Ken Pite, CJR on Mon 14 Dec 2009 at 11:29 PM
Horacio, did you read the article? Revkin took a buyout. He wasn't fired. He had other things that he had long wanted to do, and by taking a buyout he gets a trunkload of money to start his new life, and he doesn't have to worried about the New York Times going belly up later and letting people go without a buyout package.
#10 Posted by Manfred, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 01:26 AM
Andy will be missed for his in depth and professional journalism on environmental issues, in particular climate change. I had the pleasure to spend a few days with Andy on the Greenland ice sheet and was deeply impressed by his dedication and rigor to find “the truth” about anything he wrote. I will miss his reporting in NYT.
#11 Posted by Konrad Steffen, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 02:03 AM
The BIG problem here is, what will the Times do now for climate coverage? The only other person they have who has paid some attention to the scientific issues is Tierney. He seems to think, even now, that the louder critics deserve at least as much space, and respect, as the many scientists who have actually produced useful work on aspects of climate. To get up to speed on climate will take more time, effort, and actual scientific understanding than Tierney has demonstrated. So now what will happen to the Times climate coverage? It's worrying.
#12 Posted by Spencer, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 09:37 AM
Although I'm in the "denier" camp on the man-made global warming issue ( that's because I'm an atmospheric physicist, and not a computer climate modeler ) I've enjoyed Andrew's work in the NYT, and will continue to follow his career with interest. He has great potential, and may emerge as a genuinely neutral environmental reporter after leaving the NYT liberal barnyard.
Best of luck, Andrew...
#13 Posted by Jim Peden, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 02:10 PM
Monsanto..world's most evil company in my opinion.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j8W6nfSayRO5KaPsqecPMSfTXjKQD9CIJ1Q00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.
With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.
Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.
The company has used the agreements to spread its technology — giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.
For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission — giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.
Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit...
Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.
Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.
"If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things — destroy things they paid for — if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw."...
"They have the capital, they have the resources, they
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Dec 2009 at 04:29 PM
Andrew Revkin is an intelligent man.
What would you do in his place if you
-checked the raw data and saw what is happening to the climate (nothing much)
-saw that the people who created the scare (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa) are under inquiry, with legal action stopping them from further destroying their own records, and new revelations on their science ethos coming out daily, but
-you couldn't speak about it lest millions of fans would vilify you as a traitor, and
-you would stand the real risk of being a scapegoat and have your career and personal safety in danger when it all comes down - soon, it started already.
You would have to get out fast, if only for while, and then come back as the voice of reason. But how?
- get an academic job (ideal place to weather storms, leaves record intact), or
- leave to write a book (less prestigious, you cannot write a book on climate till the dust settles), or
- leave to spend more time with your family (where was your family before?) or
- leave to find yourself (soft hearted fans will love it, the rest will get the shivers)
So I'm glad for Mr. Rivkin, who went into academia, and wish him well.
Under the circumstances, an honest man who isn't a martyr could do no better...
#15 Posted by Adrian Ocneanu, CJR on Fri 18 Dec 2009 at 05:10 AM
NewsBusters: NYT Environmental Reporter Departs; Global Warming Unmentioned in Long Farewell
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/12/24/nyt-environmental-reporter-departs-global-warming-unmentioned-long-far
#16 Posted by StewartIII, CJR on Thu 24 Dec 2009 at 11:05 AM
I agree with Adrian Ocneanu that Andy Revkin is intelligent enough to realize that has been used & abused by the Climate Alarmist aka Criminals to maximize their deceit. I will give Andy even more credit if he will now support open and scientific proof instead of Science Activism. What say you Mr. Revkin please support realism on this issue.
#17 Posted by WestWright, CJR on Thu 24 Dec 2009 at 12:57 PM
Calling an attempt by Macy's Marxists to nationalize our energy "science" is not a plus for science.
#18 Posted by John Lloyd Scharf, Salem, Oregon, CJR on Sat 26 Dec 2009 at 06:25 PM
Jesus Christ guys, give it up. You have thousands of emails over 16 years and contained within is no proof of conspiracy to falsify data.
Nor is the data getting any weaker with time.
You can cherry pick all day but the facts of the matter are:
1. Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses absorb radiation and emit heat.
2. Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses have increased by about a third so far.
3. The carbon sinks that suck up about 40% to 60% of our emissions are full to saturation and are failing.
4. The temperature keeps rising and the ice keeps melting.
None of your misinterpreted cherry picking changes any of that. Am I wrong? Show me. All you email fetishists have done so far is talk, troll, and wallow in misinformation and ignorance.
Grow up.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 27 Dec 2009 at 12:21 PM