Some notes on the Heartland Leak

Heartland has yet to produce a press release, but I thought in the meantime I’d share some behind the scenes. If/when they do, I’ll add it to this post.

UPDATE: 11:45AM -The press release has been added below. One of the key documents is a fabrication

UPDATE2: 2:30PM The BBC’s Richard Black slimes me, without so much as asking me a single question (he has my email, I’ve corresponded with him previously) or even understanding what the project is about Hint: Richard, it’s about HIGHS and LOWS, not trends. No journalistic integrity with this one. – Anthony

I’m surprised at the number of articles out there on this where journalists have not bothered to ask me for a statement, but rather rely on their own opinion. To date, only Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian has asked for a statement, and she used very little of it in her article. Her colleague, Leo Hickman asked me no questions at all for his article, but instead relied on a comment I sent to Bishop Hill. So much for journalism. (Update: In response to Hickman, Lucia asks What’s horrible about this?)

(Update: 10:45AM Seth Borenstein of the AP has contacted me and I note that has waited until he can get some kind of confirmation that these documents are real. The Heartland press release is something he’s waiting for. Contacting involved parties is the right way to investigate this story.)

Here’s the query from Goldenberg:

Name: Suzanne Goldenberg



Message: Hello, I am seeking comment on the leak of the Heartland

documents by Desmogblog which appear to suggest you are funded by them. Is

this accurate? Thanks



Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.

They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.

It is simply for this special project requiring specialized servers, ingest systems, and plotting systems. They also don’t tell me what the project should look like, I came up with the idea and the design. The NOAA data will be displayed without any adjustments to allow easy side-by-side comparisons  of stations, plus other graphical representations output 24/7/365. Doing this requires programming, system design, and bandwidth, which isn’t free and I could not do on my own.  Compare the funding I asked for initially to

get it started to the millions some other outfits (such as CRU) get in the UK for studies that then end up as a science paper behind a publishers paywall, making the public pay again. My project will be a free public service when finished.


Description from the same (Heartland) documents:

Weather Stations Project

Every few months, weathermen report that a temperature record – either high

or low – has been broken somewhere in the U.S. This is not surprising, since weather is highly variable and reliable instrument records date back less than 100 years old. Regrettably, news of these broken records is often used by environmental extremists as evidence that human emissions are causing either global warming or the more ambiguous “climate change.”

Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who hosts, one of the

most popular and influential science blogs in the world, has documented that many of the

temperature stations relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or paved surfaces. It is not uncommon for these stations to over-state temperatures by 3 or 4 degrees or more, enough to set spurious records.

Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications. Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t widely publicize data from this new network, and puts raw data in spreadsheets buried on one of its Web sites.

Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new

temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by  weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011.  The Anonymous Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.


DeSmog, as part of their public relations for hire methodology to demonize skeptics, will of course try to find nefarious motives for this project. But there simply are none here. It’s something that needs doing because NOAA hasn’t made this new data available in a user friendly visual format. For example, here’s a private company website that tracks highs and low  records using NOAA data:

NOAA doesn’t make any kind of presentation like that either, which is why such things are often done by private ventures.


That above is what I sent to the Guardian, and also in a comment to Bishop Hill.

The reaction has been interesting, particularly since the David-Goliath nature of funding is laid bare here. For example, Al Gore says he started a 300 million dollar advertising campaign. The Daily Bayonet sums it up pretty well:

Hippies hate Heartland « The Daily Bayonet

What the Heartland document show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.

Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.

Here’s a clue for DeSmog, Joe Romm and other warmists enjoying a little schadenfreude today. It’s not the money that’s beating you, it’s the message.

Your climate fear-mongering backfired. You cried wolf so often the villagers stopped listening. Then Climategate I & II gave the world a peek behind the curtain into the shady practices, petty-feuding and data-manipulation that seems to pass for routine in climate ‘science’.

So enjoy the moment, warmists, because what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees. That’s not something I’d think you’d want to advertise, but knock yourselves out. It’s what you do best.

I see none of the same people at the Guardian or the blogs complaining about this:

Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties — including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

(Update: Dr. Hansen responds here)

Or the NGO’s and their budgets (thanks Tom Nelson)

With tiny budgets like $310 million, $100 million, and $95 million respectively, how can lovable underdogs like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and NRDC *ever* hope to compete with mighty Heartland’s $6.5 million?

Heartland Institute budget and strategy revealed | Deep Climate

Heartland is projecting a boost in revenues from $4.6 million in 2011, to $7.7 million in 2012. That will enable an operating budget of $6.5 million, as well as topping up the fund balance a further $1.2 million.

[Sept 2011]:  Greenpeace Environmental Group Turns 40

Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, now has offices in more than 40 countries and claims some 2.8 million supporters. Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from “direct action” activists to scientific researchers.

Last year, its budget reached $310 million.

[Nov 2011]: Sierra Club Leader Will Step Down –

He said the Sierra Club had just approved the organization’s largest annual budget ever, about $100 million for 2012, up from $88 million this year.

[Oct 2011]:  Do green groups need to get religion?

That’s Peter Lehner talking. Peter, a 52-year-old environmental lawyer, is executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s most important environmental groups. The NRDC has a $95 million budget, about 400 employees and about 1.3 million members. They’re big and they represent a lot of people.

But me and my little temperature web project to provide a public service are the real baddies here apparently. The dichotomy is stunning.

Some additional added notes:

“Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications.”

For the record, and as previously cited on WUWT, NCDC started on the new network in 2003 Heartland may have confused the Climate Reference Network with the updated COOP/USHCN modernization network which did indeed start after my surfacestations project: What the modernized USHCN will look like (April 29, 2008)

They then asked for 100 million to update it NOAA/NCDC – USHCN is broken please send 100 million dollars (Sept 21, 2010)


Moderators, do your best to keep the sort of hateful messages I’ve been getting in the past 18 hours in check in comments below. Please direct related comments from other threads to this one. Commenters please note the site policy.


PRESS RELEASE 11:45 AM – source

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 – The following statement from The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Communications Director Jim Lakely at and 312/377-4000.

Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.

The stolen documents appear to have been written by Heartland’s president for a board meeting that took place on January 17. He was traveling at the time this story broke yesterday afternoon and still has not had the opportunity to read them all to see if they were altered. Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed.

Since then, the documents have been widely reposted on the Internet, again with no effort to confirm their authenticity.

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

Apologies: The Heartland Institute apologizes to the donors whose identities were revealed by this theft. We promise anonymity to many of our donors, and we realize that the major reason these documents were stolen and faked was to make it more difficult for donors to support our work. We also apologize to Heartland staff, directors, and our allies in the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate, who have had their privacy violated and their integrity impugned.

Lessons: Disagreement over the causes, consequences, and best policy responses to climate change runs deep. We understand that.

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

[Multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]


Placing aside the $88,000 you have obtained via The Heartland Institute for a new website, can you further ‘clarify’ this paragraph from an internal document:

Heartland plays an important role in climate communications, especially through our in-house experts (e.g., Taylor) through his Forbes blog and related high profile outlets, our conferences, and through coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts).

Two questions: 1. Heartland say they have important interaction with you beyond monetary assistance. How do they coordinate with you? Would you be willing to list all contact with them and describe the purpose of each action? 2. Are you comfortable receiving support from an institute with an unethical history?
Furthermore, I notice your careful choice of words, so when you say

“They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.”

May we infer that they irregulary provide funds for associated ‘projects’ or that similar donors do?
REPLY: No, you may not and they don’t. That’s not careful wording, simply a statement of fact. Of course people such as yourself will try to find all sorts of nefarious motives. Also, and most imporatant, the figure pledged thus far is $44K, not $88K, nor the roundup to $90K listed in news stories. – Anthony




So per the way the ad on the screen lined up your site policy is ….
Over 1 Million Satisfied Customers.

Claude Harvey

Doesn’t look like much of a gotcha’ to me, but tortured facts are the coin of the realm in AGW Land. In AGW Land, “two plus two equals anything I want it to be”.


The alarmists have more fun with faith than with science and of course they like the idea of a crusade – and a crusade always needs a target. When you have religious fervor you start to lose rationality.
I suspect that if NOAA and NASA were doing their job for public service it would still cost way more that what Anthony will do for the same info and presentation. They should thank him – but I won’t hold my breath.


Stay strong. Journalists today are like a pack of coyotes, they only attack in packs and only if they sense weakness. Total transparency and the truth is your best weapons.


One could actually only hope for this story to get wide traction, if only to juxtapose the tiny budget of Heartland against the opinion buying machines on the other side of the argument.

In all these years I’ve received $100 for an article and a little more for a translation. Am I part of the well funded denial machine too?


Applauding Heartland…Koch Brothers…Microsoft…and whoever and everyone else who donates to Heartland.
Giving the other-side of the coin…is what learning and science is about. Kids deserve that opportunity and it sorely is lacking from such as the IPCC and echo-chambers.
Reading comprehension must be hard to acquire in an echo-chamber.
I’ve been reading comments, on blogs, which try to take this sentence to mean Heartland is out to dissuade teachers from teaching science…“His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”
Poor Tardish thinking…reread the sentence in whole. it is the lack of “controversy and uncertainty” being taught in schools – that dissuade NORMAL SCIENCE from being taught in schools.
Thank you All!
Thank You Mr Watts


What I’ve noticed up to now is the obvious contradiction of alarmist claims that the ‘climate denier machine’ is well funded.The leaked documents reveal clearly that climate denial is not well funded at all.
For years now I have wondereed if the alarmists were correct, and now that question has been answered. It does not pay to be a climate skeptic. It has been the greens who have been well funded all along.
Its amazing that climate skepticism has been this successful considering how little money is required.
Thanks Desmogblog. Nice work.


Thank you for all of your hard work, Anthony. It is precisely these mendacious kinds of news reports that converted me to skepticism many years ago.
Anyone who sees the facts in this case and decides that the Warmists are David and you are Goliath have a screw loose…. which makes them prime pickin’s for Warmist propaganda, I suppose.
Keep up the good fight!


Well done, Anthony Watts. You have my sincere thanks. The cry in the wilderness IS being heard, belatedly.
It’s hard to believe such an obvious scam is taking so long to bring down. Keep plugging away.

The project is worthwhile so go for it! BTW, one of my issues is finding reliable regional averages, mins and maxes, I don’t know if that is part of your project, but hope it is 🙂

Fred 2

So lets see if I have this right, if anyone takes any money from anyone to do scientific research their reputation is ruined for life, but if Warmist take billions of dollars per year based on producing outcomes their sponsors demand that’s just the way science works?

The skeptic’s funding is like someone peeing in the advocacy funding river of the global warming industry. Yet they claim that it is because of this funding that the skeptics have taken over the blogosphere and skepticism is on the rise. Of course the takeover is because their science is collapsing and mother Gaia doesn’t follow orders.

David Jones

Anthony, just a thought for your consideration. Why not put the “hateful messages” to which you refer, perhaps in another posting, closed with no comments able to be added, with enough information to identify the senders of those messages so that your readers and the world at large can see just how despicable these people are.

Moderators, do your best to keep the sort of hateful messages I’ve been getting in the past 18 hours in check in comments below.

Do you mind a few “hateful messages” for the Desmogblog Watermelons in the comments?
REPLY: You had to ask? No hateful messages in this thread at all. – Anthony


So what if Heartland funds anyone. Aren’t Greenpeace etc. fund Warmist scientists. I don’t see what the hullabaloo is about. SO WHAT. I don’t care if Exxon funded WUWT, afterall BP and Shell have funded CRU. All I care about is getting at the truth of what our climate is doing.
REPLY: For the record, neither Exxon nor BP have ever provided any donations, nor have I ever approached them – Anthony

Doug Hilliard

Anthony, I am quite grateful for the work you do and your website. I stumbled on it from somewhere maybe on Facebook and read it pretty much every day! Please keep up the good work; this silly reaction of the warmers and disproportionate money involved just shows you are having a great impact that threatens the party line!

Russ in Houston

Private funding for a private venture, Why would this cause concern? If Exxon had paid for this it would be equally non-eventful. The warmist only harp about this because its what they do. “Demonize the opposition” has long been one of their primary tactics,

Chris Colose

The revealing thing about the Heartland leak (if confirmed) is not that individuals like Carter or Watts get funded, although it’s going to be difficult to convince a lot of people that taking funding from a non-science special interest group is compatible with perfect objectivity by the one getting funded. It’s also going to be difficult to convince people that individuals like Bob Carter are getting funded to do science without knowledge of his conclusions beforehand (and I personally never believed this to be the case with the surfacestations project, given the history of posts on this site).
Much of that depends on interpretation though and will inevitably vary across individuals depending on their views on climate change. However, the documents unequivocally demonstrate the motives internal to the Heartland organization to spread anti-climate propaganda, even in to the K-12 classroom, their secret hatred toward opposition (and I thought they wanted to “debate” all the time?). None of this is very surprising; very few rational people thought the NIPCC or related works were meant to advance science.

At 10:36 AM on 15 February, Chris Colose writes:

However, the documents unequivocally demonstrate the motives internal to the Heartland organization to spread anti-climate propaganda, even in to the K-12 classroom….

Er, just what the puck is construed to constitute “anti-climate propaganda,” putzie? We’re talking about some kind of publicity to generate public antipathy toward the climate itself, maybe?
Or perhaps persuasive material aimed at informing people about the blatant fraud that’s been foisted on us by Algore and “Mike’s Hockey Team” and all the rest of the utterly corrupt participants in the great man-made climate change scam?

“Corruption is not the same as conspiracy, you understand. Conspiracy is the act of conniving immorally or illegally with others to get your bread buttered. Corruption is simply knowing which side your bread is already buttered on.”
— L. Neil Smith


Its good to see you can work in an attack on Dr. Hansen no matter the content of the post.
REPLY: and still no comment on the David-Golaith nature of the funding – Anthony

What journalism? If there were times when journalists were the ones to keep the establishment in check, these times are long gone. Today, a journalist is a paid agent of the establishment, a cogwheel in the propaganda machine.
Establishment is not happy about your project, which reveals that even the “raw” data they use for AGW propaganda is suspect. They will use every tool at their disposal to make your project go off the track (and they have so much more tools than you do, not only because they have much more money and time but because they lie, and you don’t).

I think that when discerning members of the greater public see the differences in incomes and budgets for the pro-CAGW and anti-CAGW camps they will realise just how foolish the pro camp is for drawing broader attention to this matter. It serves only to weaken further their oft-stated position.


Stay cool, Anthony, sir – these types of derision and diversionary tactics are likely to increase as the ‘team’ message gets weaker.
As can be seen, the actual ca$h figures speak for themselves – you have nothing to hide or to feel ashamed of. Indeed, many will hopefully recall, in the future annals of history, that yourself and others were the ‘few’ that stood against the ‘mighty’ and won!
(raises clenched fist in defiant comradeship, ‘Power to the People’ – lol)

Jenn Oates

I wish I could say that I am shocked by this, but I’m not. Sorry, Anthony.


do you know the name of the Anonymous Donor, who is funding your project with 44,000$?
And do you feel good, when you hear of Heartland funding the classroom project with the aim, “dissuading teachers from teaching [climate] science”? Do you realize now the context of all fundings?
REPLY: No idea. And I think that’s just sloppy writing. Let’s see what Heartland says about it. – Anthony

Joe G

Hang in there Anthony. I wonder if the “Merchant of Venice” was a nasty big oil manipulator and “denier”.
“Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man’s son may, but in the end truth will out.”


From the emails:

13:34:27 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: BP
to: shackley
Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.
Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.
So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I’ll wait for Tim’s feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).
We’re getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you – two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).
All for now,
looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse?
…> Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
> IPIECA about 10 years ago.
We used it to come up with the first estimate
> of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. ………
> Bestw ishes
> Geoff


This isn’t true:
“Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications.”
Have you notified Heartland of the fact that the CRN has existed since at least 2003 ( and was instituted as a result of a 1999 NRC report?
And please let us know how Heartland “supported and promoted” the surfacestations project.
REPLY: Yes I’ve sent them a note. But if I changed it here I’d be accused of altering the documents, so I posted it verbatum. They published and promoted this booklet for me and distrubuted it in 2009.
The GAO also agrees:

J Bowers

“I see none of the same people at the Guardian or the blogs complaining about this:
Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income”

A link to Hansen’s response might be in order, don’t you think? Google “Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 2”
REPLY: I wasn’t aware of that, or that it was a response. But I’ll link to it. Thanks for the tip – Anthony

Eric Meyer

@sceptical –
The “attack” on Dr. Hansen was very much pertinent and applicable to this topic. The Pro-CAGW crowd is made up of immoral hypocrites who blindly ignore any criminal activity by the people they agree with, but turn into a rabid lynch mob when anyone they disagree with gets a small, legitimate donation to do actual science. It’s really not hard to understand, unless you’re doing the ‘blindly ignore’ thing.

Disko Troop

Reminds me of the glee with which the Guardian received the Sarah Palin e-mails. Enlisting people to go through them tooth and comb and finding…..oh dear…a perfectly honest politician doing her job to the best of her ability, albeit with a slightly quirky outlook. Now the Gruniad (Gurdian, it is an English Joke!) has the “Heartland tapes”….. No doubt they will end up as embarrassed by the lack of any wrong doing here as they were by the “Palin tapes”. You have to feel quite sorry for the likes of Monbiot who struggle to read an entire sentence yet claim to be a journalist.
However when a few like minded rich folks realise what Heartland have achieved with so little money I imagine a few more of them will want to be on board. The winning team attracts the money.

Anthony, I am loathe to think that there are nefarious schemes and whatnot at play here, but really… $44,000 to write software that analyses data? I made that much in an entire year as a professional programmer. It took me a day to write up the trend code for HadCRUT3, and another month of extremely part time work for the OpenGL visualizer. For free.
I know it isn’t cheap to run a website, but that’s what ad revenue is for. People do make a living from it, and you know that for a fact. $44,000 is a lot.
Let the lesson be learned: Disclose your source of income for research *before* some schmuck tries to make it look like a conflict of interest. It’s what scientists do.
As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.
Hopefully you allow my comments to go through.

Fred from Canuckistan

The desperation of the Warmongers . . . . plumbing new depths of crass stupidity.


Anthony, could you say that 100% of the money would go towards setting up the website, and 0% in your pocket? I think it is probably reasonable if this is not the case, but if it IS the case, that’s a very powerful argument against it.

Yep, servers (primary and backup, rendering and ingest systems (primary and backup) server Colo rental, satellite ingest system, and cost of programming. The other half of the project (to keep it running long term) hasn’t been funded. – Anthony

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ”
I’d say you’re one step away from the win.

There are a couple of things you bring up, however, that might need some contemplation. I would like to add that in writing what I write in this comment post, I do not want to implicate you in any way, just the general money trail.
Firstly, as far as I understand it Heartland is a tax-exempt organization that merely seeks to provide information for public policy discussions. The leaked documents, if real, would seem to suggest that their activities go beyond that scope. It appears to me that they should no longer be tax-exempt and instead be classified as lobbyists.
Secondly, and this is where I am expressly not trying to say anything about *your* Heartland funding, each individual grant (your website, Singer’s salary, etc.) from organizations such as this (Heartland, CEI, AEI, etc.) are indeed fairly small! However, there are many different organizations funding many different aspects of climate skepticism and its subsequent amplification in the media. So we have a relatively small number of corporate interests donating chunks of money to a plethora of organizations that then funnel the money to a relatively small number of climate skeptics. In doing so, they get a fairly sizable bang for the buck, wouldn’t you say?
The point is not that a relatively small amount of funding (Heartland vs. Greenpeace in your example) convinced an otherwise hostile public that the climate alarmists were wrong. The point is that given human nature, the public would rather not change their ways and it only takes a small amount of money invested by various organizations to safeguard the relatively large profits of their corporate benefactors.


These lefties are shocked by the fact that skeptical scientists get money for the work they do. How many warmists work for free? Does Al Gore (or Michael Mann) work for free?

Keith Battye

Really! The funding can change the science, Really?
WUWT is not besmirched, slowed down or disproved by this. The facts are what they are and there are more here than anywhere on the web.
Well done for getting some funding Anthony. It’s hard to get and there isn’t much private cash around, unlike the tax receipts going to fund the “mainstream”.
Walk hard.

Justa Passerby

Though experiment: Let’s say I’m a leading commentator on, say, which brand of automobile is best for the consumer. It is revealed that GM “helped me find a a donor for funding” some project… to the tune of almost $100,000. Does this strengthen the credibility of my new report, which states enthusiastically that GM has absolutely the only worthwhile car on the market?

John Greenfraud

Who cares about their internet hate machine or their attempt to bully the people who exposed their massive fraud, they are losing and they know it. People are freezing to death in Europe at this very moment while these Jet-setting socialist zealots continue the scam. Hopefully, the ringleaders will be jailed in the very near future. They underestimate the legitimate anger, disgust, and pain this fraud has caused people all over the world. Keep up the good work! Thanks Anthony, we are in your debt.


It is refreshing to know that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain was founded in the early 1970s with financing from Shell and BP as written in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK).
Now, who was being funded by BIG OIL?


Anthony keep your chin high mate!
When responding to journalists, you should point out that any funding Heartland and associates get is nothing compared to the Big Climate trough. Keep the figure on them.
For one, highlight the fact that in Australia the Government has set aside $100 million for advertising to brainwash the public that the carbon tax is a good thing. So far, they’ve already spent $24 million of that and recruited the likes of Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton to spread their carbon tax is good message all over Australian TV’s.


So, Watts claims to independence from fossil industry money were false. No surprise there. Nor surprise that he is linked to an organisation that wants to shut out opposing voices and stop science teachers from teaching science.
A little surprised that the best distraction he could think of to all this anti-science dishonesty was to write that “Al Gore has more money!!”
REPLY: Show me where “fossil fuel money” is involved, provide a citation. For the record, as shown in the Climategate emails, the Climate Research Unit in the UK is funded by Shell and BP, and the United States DOE, all of which deal in fossil fuels – Anthony

It’s so long since anything has got them this excited that it’s almost worth it, the poor things haven’t had any fun recently and if this is the best they can do then I feel for them… no honestly I do!
It’s funny how they ignore the fact that BP and Shell funded the CRU, in fact why wouldn’t big oil fund the AGW camp? The scarcer oil becomes the more they benefit!
The really funny thing is that the likes of Greenpeace just can’t see that they are being well and truly played; bless!

Yeah, it is expensive to put out propaganda, but cheap to tell the truth (you terrible person you). Thank God we live in the Internet age.

Lady Life Grows

Blast it, Anthony, when you are attacked by a mad dog, it is not enough to defend yourself; you must fight back. Well, ok, this post is a fight back. But you ALSO need to discuss the Alarmists funding.
Have you ever looked at the USA NSF funding requests??? Warming, warming, warming…It is difficult to get any science done in any field unless some bloviation can be managed about how your item of interest contributes to global warming.
Don’t forget the Climategate 1 post about thousands of dollars from Shell Oil, either. (I think it was Shell). The oil companies have diversified into alternate energies AND they make more profit on fossils if they can drive its price up.
“Follow the money” is a classic. It is often relevant. This is OUR issue if only we start sending documentation of the reality to all the Journalists who ask about YOUR funding.
But what will stop the Warmist shrieking once and for all is physiology studies showing the truth about how CO2 actually affects humans and animals. Premature human babies are incubated in 7% CO2 to help their little lungs develop. That is almost 200 times atmosphere. Rodents routinely have 2-4% CO2 in their burrows, or about 50 times atmosphere, so we know mammals aren’t going to be bent out of shape by a mere doubling. The longest-lived rodent, the naked mole rat (29 years) has 6 or 8% CO2 in its burrows.
When animal scientists want to know about nutrients, they study growth rates. I have found only 3 studies so far, all showing that embryonic chickens develop faster with more CO2.


Yet another Pyrrhic victory for the warmists.
Financial support from Heartland for the surface stations project will shock no-one (except perhaps for how little the amount is that is being hyped).
Reasonable analysis of the comparative amounts involved will only serve to increase the ongoing one way traffic to the skeptical camp.
Apparently it really isn’t what you have – rather how you use it.