Congrats to Andy Revkin

I am tough on Andy — precisely because he is the most thorough and high-impact climate reporter. He reports on his blog:

I’ve received quite a nice honor for my sustained examination of the science and politics of global warming, from the North Pole to the White House. It’s the John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism….

The award, named for the NBC television correspondent and anchor who died in 1996, is given to journalists operating pretty much below the radar, on stories that simmer instead of explode.

Kudos, Andy. Well deserved.

6 Responses to Congrats to Andy Revkin

  1. john says:

    Not to be Churlish, but I find Andy to be infected with that “on the one hand, this, on the other that” faux balance that is rampant in journalism. It’s never good practice to substitute balance for truth and accuracy, and nowhere is it less appropriate than in science reporting.

    I also find him to be a bit credulous — his stance in reporting on needed breakthroughs, for instance, and he continually misrepresents the cost of mitigating climate change … If this is award winning journalism then we’re in trouble.

  2. Dano says:

    john, I think Andy tries to explain tough-to-grasp issues to the reg’lur folk, not the motivated and informed. The result is expected, in my view. It’s not the best, but it’s among the best there is. Don’t grind your teeth at Andy, grind your teeth at the state of knowledge of the masses.



  3. john says:


    I’m just a tooth grinding kind of guy these days, I guess. But Dano, there’s a certain circularity to your commnet. It’s Andy’s job to inform people on this issue — to give them knowledge — yet you ask me to cool out because it’s the uninformed masses who are at fault.

    Could it be that Andy and his cohorts aren’t doing there jobs?

  4. john says:

    or their jobs?

  5. Andy Revkin says:

    John, I’ve got to challenge you to find an example of ‘faux balance’ in my climate stories that holds up to scrutiny. I try to write fair and accurate stories, not “fair and balanced” stories.

    I’ve written two book chapters exploring journalism and “slow drip” climate and environment issues and carefully describe how to avoid the “tyranny of balance.” Again, start a list, here or on Dot Earth. (And thanks for the congrats, Joe.)

  6. s katz says:

    Andy, re: ‘Arctic Ice Retreat Misses Last Year’s Mark’.

    “Global warming from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases almost certainly contributes to the Arctic ice retreats, according to a host of Arctic specialists. But many say that natural variations in Arctic winds and cloud cover probably had a role in shaping the particularly large ice losses in the past two summers.”

    The past TWO summers?
    I could not find any scientist that said THIS YEAR’S wind and cloud cover had an accelerated impact on the melting.

    Walt Meier, who you quoted in your article said this also:

    “I think this summer has been more remarkable than last year, in fact, because last year we had really optimal conditions to melt a lot of ice. We had clear skies with the Sun blazing down, we had warm temperatures, and winds that pushed the ice edge northwards. We didn’t have any of this this year, and yet we still came within 10% of the record; so people might be tempted to call it a recovery, but I don’t think that’s a good term, we’re still on a downwards trend towards ice-free Arctic summers.”

    I had to go to the BBC to find his quote in full.
    I could not find it in any major US new source.