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

Email: suzanne.goldenberg@xxx.xxx

Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk

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

MY REPLY:

===============================================================

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 WattsUpwithThat.com, 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  WattsUpwithThat.com. 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:

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/yesterday/us.html

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 – NYTimes.com

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 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/annual-reports.html 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 http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

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 jlakely@heartland.org 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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
631 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ThePowerofX
February 15, 2012 10:07 am

Anthony,
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

MattN
February 15, 2012 10:10 am

Laughable…

LamontT
February 15, 2012 10:13 am

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

Claude Harvey
February 15, 2012 10:14 am

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”.

mikegeo
February 15, 2012 10:14 am

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.

oldgamer56
February 15, 2012 10:16 am

Anthony,
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.

Kaboom
February 15, 2012 10:19 am

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.

February 15, 2012 10:19 am

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?

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 10:20 am

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

klem
February 15, 2012 10:20 am

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.

Joe
February 15, 2012 10:21 am

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!

BioBob
February 15, 2012 10:26 am

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.

February 15, 2012 10:27 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:28 am

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?

February 15, 2012 10:29 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:31 am

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.

February 15, 2012 10:32 am

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

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 10:33 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:33 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:35 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:36 am

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.

Reply to  Chris Colose
February 15, 2012 10:51 am

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

sceptical
February 15, 2012 10:38 am

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

February 15, 2012 10:39 am

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).

February 15, 2012 10:39 am

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.

Kev-in-Uk
February 15, 2012 10:41 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:42 am

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

Capo
February 15, 2012 10:44 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:44 am

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.”

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 10:47 am

From the emails:

13:34:27 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: BP
to: shackley
Simon,
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,
Mike
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=246
looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse?

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4767
…> 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
http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/0277.txt

JPY
February 15, 2012 10:48 am

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 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/annual-reports.html) 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. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
The GAO also agrees: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/30/gao-report-on-the-poor-quality-of-the-us-climate-monitoring-network/
-Anthony

J Bowers
February 15, 2012 10:48 am

“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
February 15, 2012 10:49 am

@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
February 15, 2012 10:49 am

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.

February 15, 2012 10:51 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:52 am

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

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 10:53 am

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.

REPLY:
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

February 15, 2012 10:53 am

Antony;
“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.

February 15, 2012 10:55 am

Anthony,
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.

mj
February 15, 2012 10:55 am

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?

Keitho
Editor
February 15, 2012 10:55 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:56 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:56 am

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.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 10:57 am

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).
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Now, who was being funded by BIG OIL?

Dale
February 15, 2012 10:58 am

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.
http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/12/01/100M-Carbon-Tax-Advertising-Blitz-Confirmed.aspx

KarlL
February 15, 2012 10:58 am

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

February 15, 2012 10:59 am

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!

February 15, 2012 10:59 am

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
February 15, 2012 10:59 am

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.

ThePowerofX
February 15, 2012 11:00 am

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

Jud
February 15, 2012 11:02 am

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.

DCA
February 15, 2012 11:03 am

OT but sks have started their attack on Dr. Fahrenholt.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 11:04 am

For the media who read here due to the above.
Off the subject but rather on your actions.
After all this is just some more “swiftboating” and we all know John F. Kerry’s awards and citations are real, that he had good intentions when as a Lt. in the U.S. Navey Reserve and meeting with the North Viet Amry and Viet Cong in Paris France.
So, go away and work your protection racket for Pres. Obama. There are to many facts herein for your type of wrok.
Its just U.S..

Severian
February 15, 2012 11:04 am

I’m sorry to say Anthony that you will now be ranked right up there with Goldstein as a target of the Two Minute Hate. That’s how these neo-INGSOC types roll sadly. Be consoled by the fact that you have helped to spread truth far and wide. David vs. Goliath indeed. You do a lot with your slingshot.

TGSG
February 15, 2012 11:06 am

They really did open up the wrong can of worms didn’t they? WTG Desmugblog!

Phil C
February 15, 2012 11:06 am

You seem particularly concerned about your role in this, Anthony. Actually, your $88,000 is small potatoes compared to much larger concerns these documents raise. The first I can think of is the classroom project. This is scary. The Heartland memo writes that the effort is to promote curricula, and I quote here “that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.” I think science teachers should be teaching science. Do You?

February 15, 2012 11:06 am

When warmistas encounter opposition, they are so absolutely sure they are right that they can’t imagine any rational person not falling in line. Communists were like that too. So they fall back on one of a) big oil (but look how paltry the Heartland $ is, and they do other things than climate with it), b) deniers are retarded or c) its a communication (read propaganda) problem. Never ever admit you are wrong–what’s that in Latin? Great motto eh?

rw
February 15, 2012 11:07 am

The silver lining here is that these people are sealing themselves up more and more completely within their own reality warp. It won’t be pretty when it all comes crashing down, but that’s their problem.

February 15, 2012 11:07 am

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 devil 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

Robbie
February 15, 2012 11:08 am

Yippie!
It looks like both sides are exposed now.
Finally both sides can come together and behave like grown-ups from now on. I really began to hate the childish yes-no arguments all the time.
To the alarmists: Where is the catastrophic warming?
To the skeptics: Where is the huge cooling? This La Niña looks to become another pathetic weak one. Just like the last one of 2010/2011.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png
Conclusion: The human signal is already there to be seen in the satellite temperature record.
Roy Spencer and the majority of skeptics (even Lord Monckton) recognizes some warming by a doubling of CO2. So do I. We’ve already gone up 110 ppm.

Village Idiot
February 15, 2012 11:09 am

Just to prove that the Master’s motives are as white as the driven snow and above reproach, I think he should make all emails between him and St. Charles of Heartland available for public scrutiny

Peter
February 15, 2012 11:09 am

I found the description of Heartland’s campaign to spread doubt on global warming to be similar to the industry-funded campaigns against restrictions on second hand smoking, CFC regulation, etc. as described in Natalie Orestes’ book Merchants of Doubt. It certainly sounds like Heartland is working off of the same playbook.

John Brisbin
February 15, 2012 11:10 am

I am shocked, SHOCKED!, to learn that people not sucking on the government …spigot… also need money to do science.
Ever since I got my first welfare check, I have been able to maintain my purity and the proper level of contempt for those nasty capitalists.

Paul Butler
February 15, 2012 11:10 am

Re the so-called “David-Goliath” funding comparison:
(a) Heartland is not the only organisation funding selective skepticism aimed at the unwelcome conclusions of the AGW hypothesis.
(b) Action to combat the predicted consequences of AGW is not the only target of funding by Greenpeace and the other NGOs
So to compare the total budget of Heartland with the total budget of various NGOs is just meaningless

peeke
February 15, 2012 11:11 am

So now we have a clear picture: There is the Heartland Institute that has an agenda. We have the AGW crew on the other has that has an agenda as well. Gee, I didn’t need an article for that.
Andrew, when you link to Daily Mail articles as you recently did about solar cycle 25 you set a standard: The Daily Mail is not a reliable scientific source, and this wasn’t worth the link if you are curious about earths climate rather than wanting to prove your point. (AGW proponents, please not: This all applies to you lot too)
That is why I hardly want to read about the climate until we are a number of years beyond now: Then you may see if the current flat line actually means something or not. Mind you, I moved from believing this to skeptic because the AGW crew basically state that the flat doesn’t exist, even if I see it. That makes me highly suspicious. Predictions about global cooling because of a solar decline comparable to the Dalton minimum is equally idiotic. The Dalton minimum itself hardly saw global temperatures falling.
Watch the graph for a number of years. That is the only serious scientific thing to do.

Reply to  peeke
February 15, 2012 11:53 am

At 11:11 AM on 15 February, peeke gripes:

…when you link to Daily Mail articles as you recently did about solar cycle 25 you set a standard….

Hm. In the cited article, The Daily Mail reported that:

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

What, a newspaper isn’t supposed to report on information made public by the precisely the sorts of reputable climate experts extolled by the CAGW catastrophists? When nuggets like this:

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

…are brought to their attention, the journalists of The Daily Mail are supposed to “spike” it to prevent their readers from learning about it?
Yep, Mr. Watts did “set a standard” with his blog’s mention of The Daily Mail having reported the findings of scientists in that article, just as The Daily Mail met the standards of professional journalism by ensuring that the facts as reported were verified, meeting their responsibilities as a news organ.
peeke, have you got anything factual with which to prove that what was reported in that Daily Mail article was in error, or are you just condemning this particular newspaper as “not a reliable scientific source“?
Because, bubbeleh, that’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (evading address of the substance by attacking the source instead).
Meaning that you’ve lost the argument.

Brian R Adams
February 15, 2012 11:13 am

Anthony,
Time you put up a prominent “Donate to WUWT!” button so we can all vote with our mountains of ill-gotten cash (evil deniers that we are.)

William M. Connolley
February 15, 2012 11:14 am

Lots of fun, eh? “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” is nice, though I note that the attempts to spin this are already starting.
Heartland’s statement that “no more than 5% of total budget from a single corporate entity” now looks to have been very carefully crafted, now we know that 20% came from a single individual!
“At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports” is also pleasantly honest – no pretence there of actually doing any real science.

Chris Colose
February 15, 2012 11:15 am

Craig-
Whatever a “warmist” is, they probably are right, because they have that stuff called ‘physics’ and ‘data’ to back them up. The problem is you have to get educated in the physics, and you need to learn the data, its limitations, and how it applies/does not apply to the problem of interest. Despite what everyone thinks, you can’t read a blog to get all that. And absolutely no one here understands when they are being duped, like in the last post on sea level rise, or can spot errors (like in your paleoclimate reconstruction). It’s mostly a lot of gullible, angry people who hate the idea CO2 influences climate.

Phil Clarke
February 15, 2012 11:17 am

An anonymous multmillionaire is funding the suppression of science teaching in your country. How is this not headline news?
[Reply: a well known billionaire is funding the pseudo science blog sceptical science. That billionaire is a multiple convicted felon who worked willingly for the Nazis in WWII. How is that not headline news? -mod]

DavidG
February 15, 2012 11:17 am

Haven’t heard a word today about the huge amount of tax dollars spent on warming propaganda.
In the end this kerfuffle won’t matter much, what will trump this is the cooling that comes from a Maunder Minimum and continued defections by former warmers! Keep up the good work.

R Shearer
February 15, 2012 11:18 am

Does Anthony have a helicopter?
REPLY: No, nor even a plane like Mr. Gore does, – Anthony

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 11:20 am

ThePowerofX says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:07 am
Anthony,
………………Are you comfortable receiving support from an institute with an unethical history?
See my comment about CRU being funded from the early 1970s up to at least 2008 by BP and Shell. Not to mention parts of the nuclear industry. Is that enough ethics for you?

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 11:20 am

Keep in mind.
If you/we were not dead center on target they would not say a word if an astroid hit U.S. all on the top of our heads.
You will feel the hate. They have the thug street gang way, watch your back.

LamontT
February 15, 2012 11:21 am

Actually you would think that the warmistas would want to bury this information. As you point out it doesn’t make them look good. They spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and their message is failing. Others spend very little and defeat them. It does not at all make those supporting AGW look good.
So of course in brilliant fashion they are displaying just how they are over matched by vastly less money. heh.

Alexander K
February 15, 2012 11:25 am

Anthony, IMHO you are one of the genuine ‘white knights’ in this great battle for truth; Leo Hickman is a Warmist copywriter masquerading as a journalist and most readers who are aware of his track record disbelieve his nonsense. It takes a while, but serial liars and snake-oil salesmen are usually brought down by their own calumny.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
February 15, 2012 11:27 am

The real point is : why should you not receive funding for running WUWT from anyone who wants to fund you? Science should stand up to scrutiny no matter who funds it. These leftwing rags and conspiracy theorists are simply looking for a fight these days and to avoid debate when they continually insist any critic of theirs is being funded by “someone”. They receive more funding than their critics and often it is the taxpayer doing it!

John Mason
February 15, 2012 11:29 am

88k for a website is the astonishing bit WRT Surface Stations. I know loads of people who could have done it for wayyy under that! As to the rest, guess we shall have to see….
REPLY: Actually it is $44K, and the phase 2 to keep it running may/may not be funded. Try hiring a good programmer for a year and purchasing the relevant equipment for $44K – Anthony

Tom in Florida
February 15, 2012 11:29 am

It appears that those who receive government funding do not like those who receive private funding. After all, only those who are correct but also honest and truthful receive government funding while everyone else has to look to the private sector. (that’s sarcasm folks, just in case you missed it)

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 11:33 am

@Phil C
If you try to make a point – try using the whole quote
“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.”
Post-normal science practices in AGW do NOT teach “controversial and uncertain”[ies] of the AGW hypothesis in school….THUS they do not teach Normal Science.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 11:33 am

44K to Anthony Watts to study what he knows about.
$1.9 million to Dr. Michael Mann to study……………………..environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases.
No wonder the Warmists won’t give. Follow the BIG money >>>>>>>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html

tallbloke
February 15, 2012 11:36 am

$100 tip jar donation made towards getting that $44K up to the $88K you need
Keep up the good work Anthony, the world needs more honest men like you.

Bernie
February 15, 2012 11:36 am

Anthony:
Given Michael Mann’s apparent claim in his new book to have received terrible emails and the implication that it is only skeptics who send such emails, I do believe, as some other commenters have urged, that compiling these nasty comments and creating a separate post would provide something of a reality check.
You have also been very tolerant IMO with some of the comments that have been posted here.

February 15, 2012 11:37 am

Nothing to see here,” is of course what y’all are saying. Given the context, that wears a little thin. “dissuade teachers from teaching science”? “we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports”? “This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.”
Interesting positions for a non-profit to take.
I want to concede a couple of points from Anthony’s rant:
1) I do not begrudge anyone funding for publicly exposing data in an honest and even-handed way. The general incapacity of the scientific institutions for doing so in a reasonable, up-to-date, convenient way is quite a legitimate point of complaint. And Anthony may well do this honestly, because unlike Heartland in general, he appears to “buy his own dog food”. I can imagine how this could be mishandled, but I’m not one for prior restraint.
2) Anthony has a very good point that Gore purportedly has $300 million compared with Heartland’s 5 to 10 million per year. Is Gore’s counter-campaign ineffective, and if so why?
(I don’t think the other “green” groups are especially comparable as they have broader missions. Whether they ought to is another question. For instance, there’s not much percentage in protecting ecosystems under rapid climate change scenarios.)
Both are good topics for further discussion, unlike the stuff that usually passes for science around here. But both of the above are clearly intended to deflect interest from Heartland’s revealed indifference to the facts of the matter, and its as-suspected dubious status as a 501c3.

Jeff Condon
February 15, 2012 11:37 am

Anthony,
I think that it is important to note that the furor is about the presentation of data which is in the public domain. How can that be considered in any way an anti-AGW project?
You are being attacked for your name without consideration of the project.

Birdieshooter
February 15, 2012 11:38 am

@ Chris Colose Sorry but I see more duping from the AGW fanatics than I see from the other side. There are too many other sites and scientific studies which contradict your pseudo-science to even worry about this site. It really is getting tough watching all your work going down the drain not to speak of those future grants. I never hear how the science is wrong from your crowd only the usual pathetic conspiracy theories

Disko Troop
February 15, 2012 11:38 am

Interesting that in the electronic media age there always seems to be a weasel in the woodpile. Do we now assume that it is no longer possible to carry out any purpose with any degree of confidentiality.
Should we all be required to conduct our entire lives on Facebook. Abolish the private phone call, demand that all face to face meetings have a witness, have all snail mail opened and inspected, have all e-mail routed via FBI servers, have CCTV operating in all public and many private spaces, have only government agencies paying the wages, etc etc.
Welcome to Karl Marx land folks, leave your identity at the door and take a number.

February 15, 2012 11:40 am

Anthony, just keep doing what you’re doing. Except make mockery of them. Their actions and blatherings are laughable, we should just point and laugh. The dichotomy they hold isn’t something you should bother about. Just like you did, point out the hypocrisy, laugh at them, point at them, continue.
These are funny desperate little creatures who will say and do anything to further their agenda. We all know this, they know this, and now more of the public will see this. Let their shrill screeches hit the ear of the common public.

February 15, 2012 11:41 am

“The Heartland Institute…is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels in New York’s Times Square as well as in Washington DC.” Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian
You climate change deniers are such cheapskates! The IPCC, UEA, Greenpeace, NOAA, etc., send their people to spartan conferences at modest hotels in Copenhagen, Bali as well as in Cancun.

Claude Harvey
February 15, 2012 11:41 am

Stories such as this one are not really expected to discredit WUWT in the eyes of either skeptics or the open minded middle-of-the-roaders. Such stories are intended to give “true believers” a “logical hook” on which to hang their hats in order for them to mindlessly write off facts or theories appearing in WUWT that might conflict with their beliefs. It’s a politicians trick that has been successfully employed since time immemorial to preserve “political base” while the politician attempts to fight his way out of an embarrassing situation.
The irony is that in a pitched battle over which side of the AGW issue receives THE LEAST FUNDING from obvious or suspected self-interested sources, pro-AGW interests would lose in a landslide of epic proportions.

February 15, 2012 11:42 am

Chris Colose: I am sure you think you are right, but do you agree with James Hansen’s tipping points and 20 feet of sea level rise? How about the Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035? Oh, you don’t? You must be a denier. There is a bait and switch in the debate, where the proven part of the physics (to be kind) only gives 1.3 deg C or so warming, and the feedbacks are unproven. So when Chris says “physics” and “data” the quotes are appropriate. Then, based on handwaving about feedbacks, catastrophe is proclaimed to be out fate, which those of us who know something about trees and crops and animals do not see as likely. Are we forbidden from speaking about what we know by yourself? And the remedies proposed, like windmills, are ludicrous and have potential of serious harm to many via fuel poverty and slowed economic growth.
So when Chris speaks, it is “science” but when anyone disagrees with Chris it is “propaganda”–I don’t think so.

Robin Hewitt
February 15, 2012 11:42 am

There is no such thing as bad publicity. Whatever you do, do not apologise.
I’d recommend the “Well D’uh?” approach. You saw the need for the new site. were you supposed to foot the bill and do all the work yourself while keeping WUWT going at the same time?
Personally I hope you trousered a good dollop of cash yourself, there is nothing wrong with making money. The journalists pursuing you are trying to justify their fat salaries at your expense, you have no reason to be nice about this.

February 15, 2012 11:43 am

If I may steal from Lucia:
—————————————————–
In article about Heartland funding by Leo Hickman begins
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” pleaded the Wizard of Oz as Toto revealed the true identity of the man with the big, booming voice to Dorothy and her friends. But it was too late: the illusion was shattered.
And so creates a tone that suggests all that follows is somehow nefarious.
Nestled in this we discover that:
The documents state (pdf) that in January his company ItWorks/IntelliWeather was paid $44,000 to “create a new website 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”. A total of $88,000 (pdf) is expected to be handed to Watts for the project by the end of 2012.
Given the “Wizard of Oz” introduction, and the choice of verb “handed” I can only suppose that somehow, we are all supposed to read this and be horrified at the thought that someone who hires ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create a product might pay them. But turning to the specifics actually reported I can’t see why I should be horrified.
A website devoted to making NOAA data easy to understand by lay people seems like a good idea. It will take many man-hours to bring it into being. I can’t see any thing remotely shocking that Heartland — a private entity– would pay someone to create such a site. The price of creating this seems reasonable relative to what NOAA would pay NOAA staff if they created it. I don’t see anything remotely shocking that Heartland would pick a private company rather than hunting around for a faculty member to mooonlight doing non-research and non-teaching efforts to do this. I don’t see why anyone would object to Anthony’s company which has experience dealing with Weather data and creating websites accessible to the public being Heartland’s choice.
Hickman continues, suggesting what might be “bad” about it:
This revelation is potentially damaging to Watts as he has previously laughed off the notion that he is being funded by any corporate- and/or vested-interest group. “AGW proponents seem hell bent on trying to repeat this ‘linked to’ nonsense at any cost,” he wrote last May. “Heh, I’ve yet to see that check or any from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy or development company. Somebody must be stealing checks out of my mailbox. /sarc – Anthony.”
Huh? Why should it be damaging to discover that in May 2011, Anthony said he had not received funding, but later in January 2012, he managed to get someone to fund a project for his company? Moreover, it’s clear from the Heartland memo that the funding in 2012 is new. The memo highlights the entry in yellow– indicating this is a new project in 2012.
Is there a rule that Anthony is required to see into the future and know that he will never, ever, ever get funding from Heartland to create a web site? Or that having said he wasn’t getting any in May his company can’t accept a project over 6 months later?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tell-me-whats-horrible-about-this/

Algebra
February 15, 2012 11:45 am

When did Oceanographics (the O in NOAA) become Aeronautics?

AC
February 15, 2012 11:45 am

thank you for your site Mr Watts

You Guys are unreal
February 15, 2012 11:46 am

“As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.”
Errm, you guys called the HACKER who stole from the CRU a ‘hero’. Whereas in this case it’s been reported as an inside whistleblower. That’s a whole different ball game.

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 11:48 am

@William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
You who ruined Wikipedia for me to use as reference – talk of “spin”?

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 11:48 am

The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, helped set up a BIG OIL assisting company called GloriOil (name now change). It is a residual oil extraction technology company which assists oil companies to extract the last remaining amounts of oil from oil fields which would otherwise be abandoned. He was its adviser during a period when he was also the head of the IPCC.
I think he is still one of the key executives.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7485884
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=27919769

thelastdemocrat
February 15, 2012 11:50 am

Hopefully there is someone in the audience who can talk more in-depth about the politics of the Department of Energy. They are a way for the govt to get more power over the oil industry. Oil may be friends with them in endeavors so one oil buddy can be ‘in’ on the game.
Ken Lay was at DOE in the 1970s – he is credited with at least contributing to the idea of cap-n-trade, if not being the one to come up with the idea and promote it. Later, at Enron, Ken Lay worked to lobby for the original Kyoto Protocol. There is an infamous note from him in Kyoto back to the folks back home about how Kyoto will set up Enron to make money hand-over-fist: Lay wanted to have Enron be “in” on the brokerage – the house always gets a cut.
DOE has had connection with global warming academia since before Mann did his dissertation. Mann had his dissertation, at Yale, funded by DOE. That diss eventually became MBH98, AKA “The Hockey Stick,” The “post-doctoral” fellowship on Mann’s CV, Hollaender Fellowhsip, is from DOE. The fellowship was granted in 1996, and Mann graduated in 1998 – I don’t know how common it is for a diss to be supported by a post-doc funding source.
Mann IMMEDIATELY jumped to his very prominent role in the IPCC. This did not just happen – this path was paved. I don’t know how.
Journalists might want to asl how Mann jumped form being just another geophysicist to being a lead editor of a couple IPCC chapters.
______
We can see Al Gore’s moneyed interest: he is co-founder and co-manager with a couple other guys of “Generation Investment Management,” an investment firm that specializes in helping very big investors buy into the green economy. His investment firm has stopped taking on investors since they have as much assets to manage as they feel they can take on.
http://www.generationim.com/
Journalists might want to investigate the money Al Gore makes by convincing very big investors, both private and public, to let Gore manage their investments. Does his company do this for free, or for a fee? Take a guess. A bit off the top of the earnings on $500 billion is, in my book, a lot more than $44K.
That is why Al Gore can manange to give away ALL proceeds from An Inconvenient Truth. He has not missed a meal, or a massage.
Giving away the proceeds of AIT is not so noble when you see how big his bank acct must be, with the commission checks from GIM.
When journalists DO ask about this “prophet motive,” Gore has gotten defensive.
But will journalists stop asking, or go pursue the story about hundreds of billions versus $44k?
As a classic progressive, Gore believes in twisting the truth, and suppressing truth. He has some controlling role in Google; it is well-documented that when ClimateGate 1 broke, Google search would not autocomplete “climategat” eve nthough it was a huge search term. This suppression of Google search results story itself went viral, basically forcing Google to quit suppressing auto-complete for “climategat.”
_______
Sure, the surfacestations effort COULD be in actuality a biased story to hide truth and support Big Oil.
If so, anyone of us can replicate surfacestations. Just start going out and documenting these temp sites, and see how your results come out. It is a free country.
If I declare the U.S. pop to be 200 million, you can go find the U.S. census data and show me to be wrong. This is the benefit of transparent, accessible data. Truth wins out over rhetoric that is a distortion of truth.
Until a few years ago, I had no firm opinion on AGW. THen, I started reading articles such as MBH98, and surfacestations website.
It was not too long until I decided the evidence for AGW was 1. sketchy, and 2. had a lot of profit-motive behind it.
Journalists can go do the same. Investigate. Any journalist can go read all the info that GIM posts.
They can ask Mann for his emails, and answers, like Watts is being asked. THey can ask Mann how he jumped from recent grad to IPCC chapter editor in no time. That story will not be in the UVA emails, but in the Yale emails.

Exp
February 15, 2012 11:51 am

Anthony can have his little bit of fame and the proceeds from the dying fossil fuel industry. But, if they care for value for money, what are they getting? Someone that claims the surface record is tainted by UHI? Wrong. Some one that claims there’s no warming at all? Wrong. Someone that claims the signal is buried in the uncertainties? Wrong. Some one that puts up a post that shows multiple graphics that demonstrate a long term trend of AGW but then tries to argue the last dozen points are the death nell for solid science? Fail.
Tell me one little bit of science Anthony has contributed?
If I were them, I’d be asking for my money back.
They can pay Anthony all they like but reality is, the world is still warming, AGW still has to be dealt with and the flat-earth society communing here will one day deny they ever knew Anthony
Watts like the Judases they are.
REPLY: Here’s the science:
Link to the paper (final print quality), Fall et al 2011 here
Fall et all 2011 supplementary information here
Media Resource – download PDF here
– Anthony

Frank K.
February 15, 2012 11:52 am

Chris Colose says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:36 am
Look…he’s back from GISS! Too afraid to talk about Model E no doubt…or the millions in climate research dollars GISS is sucking from the taxpayers…

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 11:52 am

Anthony –
If you are being completely honest about the fact that the money would only go to a website and maintenance thereof (which I have no reason to doubt, but I don’t know you personally, no offense meant), then I’d say that any attacks against you are completely unsubstantiated and that you have done no wrong. Some of these other individuals seem to be more “funded” than you are, however, and it is worth investigating – though anyone complaining about Soon’s $125 a month has got to be kidding me.
Related to the “teaching science” line. That’s got to be a typo. I can’t imagine any world where the person types that knowingly. It is almost perfectly crafted to give a talking point to the opposition.

Phil C
February 15, 2012 11:52 am

kim2ooo — You have a lot of Chutzpah saying I should provide a complete quotation at this website considering how the climategate emails were addressed here. That said, I don’t see a signifiacnt, material difference between my abbreviated quotation and yours. Please enlighen us.

Koos
February 15, 2012 11:53 am

If the Heartland budget is real, it appears that the organizations controlled by Anthony Watts, are getting $44,000 annually in Heartland funding… Watts has always denied he was getting fossil fuel industry money. And of course, we already knew he was getting money from a Fox News affiliate in the past.
$88,000 Surface Stations Project
Payments to ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create web site featuring data from NOAA’s new network of surface stations. First payment of $44,000 in January, second of same amount contingent on fundraising around mid-year.
Also Heartland published his fallacious report claiming that the temperature records were changed by “dropping” stations in the past… I wonder how much money, or non-monetary compensation Watts got from Heartland for that piece of propaganda?
Shouldn’t someone ask Anthony Watts to come clean on how much Heartland funding, travel expenses, publishing expenses, conference fees etc., he has gotten and accepted?

Frank K.
February 15, 2012 11:56 am

Michael Tobis says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
OK Michael. Let’s stop all government funding for “dubious” climate “research” projects, and Anthony will stop receiving funds from the Heartland Institute. That sounds fair to me.
For everyone’s reading pleasure…
Billions in government Climate Ca$h for the arrogant climate elites:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf

Severian
February 15, 2012 11:57 am

Barry Woods said: “A website devoted to making NOAA data easy to understand by lay people seems like a good idea.”
To most people, yes. But to AGW alarmists, not so much. Think about the resistance the Catholic Church had to Bibles being printed in anything but Latin. They didn’t want the unwashed masses able to read scripture directly for themselves, they wanted them to have to come to the priests for the knowledge. To ensure they “got it right” and coincidentally keep the priests in a position of power and able to tell the masses what to do. Similar issue here, it’s less a science than a religion sadly.
Why, if you were able to see the real data, simply presented, sans “adjustments” and commentary from the AGW clergy as to what it all means, in a nice predigested press release.

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 11:58 am

Ah, the entire climate strategy document is fake. Delightful.

Koos
February 15, 2012 11:58 am

Heartland:
“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.”
Yes keep them stupid! Do not reveal the truth about global warming. Hide the facts behind curtains of “candy science” t o be found every day on misleading websites fully paid by fossile fuel diggers.

February 15, 2012 11:58 am

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
The flagship of Greenpeace that was sunken by the French secret service was replaced thanks to a donation of a billionnaire (and later again by the French government). Rumours are going around that this was one of the owners of Phillip Morris. Of course, Greenpeace doesn’t receive any donations from Big Tobacco or other companies…

Steve from Rockwood
February 15, 2012 11:59 am

Shawn Halayka says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:51 am

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 …

Was this when you were living in your parent’s basement? $44,000 isn’t very much money unless you’re buying a watch. I wouldn’t be interested in starting such an ambitious project for which I wasn’t being paid. I’m just not that stupid.
Oh, sorry Anthony. I meant dedicated. Time to go to the tip jar 😉

Beesaman
February 15, 2012 11:59 am

Horray! There are two sides to the climate debate!
Odd that the Guardian has only just noticed, maybe as ‘journalists’ they might want to ‘investigate’ how much the green industry and green politicos pour into the AGW cash bucket.
They might also want to explain why they appear to endorse the closing down of scientific debate and are instead happy to tolerate a totalitarian view of science as espoused by a number of AGW supporters.

George E. Smith;
February 15, 2012 11:59 am

“”””” “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 “””””
So where did you come up with the idea that “conspiracy” is necessarily, either “immoral” or “illega”l, or that it constitutes “conniving”. Conspiracy is simply people or persons or organisations getting together to plan some joint strategy, aimed at benefitting (hopefully) some common interest they may have. Happens all the time, as a standard operation of businesses of all kinds, or governmental bodies such as the US Congress. Different parties to the conspiracy have different interests or emphases on their interests, and collectively they negotiate some procedure or course of action that is acceptable to all.
Goes by all kinds of names; “strategy sessions”, “business plans”, “white papers”, you name it.
Yes it is SOP for outsiders who are not privy to the conspiracy procedings, to assume that it must be some nefarious purpose, since they are kept in the dark; as in it is none of their business; so they use the “conspiracy” term as a derogatory comment.
These days, so many people have no visible means of earning a living doing honest work, they figure they can advise others on how to do their work, whether their advice is either needed or wanted.
Now in matters funded by the tax paying people; other than matters of national security, the people have a right to know what they are getting or learning from their tax contributions.

Lars P.
February 15, 2012 12:01 pm

Don’t let yourself be fooled by this or any such action Anthony. As many other say, please continue to do what you did, point at them and the false science.
As Jo Nova said, skeptics are winning:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/we-are-winning-eh-part-4-or-so/
Speaking of Jo, I think she is right again, lets do talk about money:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 12:03 pm

Phil Clarke says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:17 am
An anonymous multmillionaire is funding the suppression of science teaching in your country. How is this not headline news?
————————
Actually, the suppression came from the other side. I was forced to buy an “Incontinent Truth” at my school.
No, I didn’t misspell 😉

DJ
February 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Not surprisingly, the misinformation on WUWT “misinformation” is spreading like wildfire.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.ars

February 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Why is it that several commenters have said it would be ok for Mr. Watts to accept Heartland money as long as it wasn’t for himself? (ie for servers and a programmer) Can someone’s facts only be valid if he is totally unpaid? What about every single proponent of global warming? I do believe they are mostly paid quite well as gov employees.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Tell us Anthony, did you become a skeptic before or after the funding? No need to answer I already know you were sceptical before. No change there then.
Keep up the good work and I hope you get lots more FUNDING from Heartland and other concerned organisations; concerned that people are being swindled in the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.

Exp
February 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Hateful comments? Your blog has been a haven form those posting hate material against honest scientists for years and you have willfully provided a platform for them.
The comments are littered with abuse of scientists and claims of them presenting a science based on making money.
And you have openly claimed not to have taken money from these sources previously on this blog, Anthony. You have been dishonest.
[Reply: Anthony is not dishonest. He has stated that this is his first grant, so you owe him an apology for libel. And what you call “abuse” is free speech. As opposed to blogs like RealClimate, which heavily censors scientific views they disagree with. ~dbs, mod.]

February 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Keep Calm and Carry On. I am confident this hullabaloo will shake out to your advantage.
The “teaching science” quote is an obvious piece of ungrammatical sloppy writing, which I suspect should have read “teaching that the science is settled” or some such. However, it is now going to be very hard to prove this ,if it is the case, to everyone’s satisfaction!
Everything else I have seen so far is ,basically, unremarkable and exactly what I would have thought, deep down, all sides of this debate would have expected to have seen.
Much ado about nothing.

February 15, 2012 12:06 pm

Thanks, Anthony. We will be all using your project, when done. Even the alarmists will.

Bernieny
February 15, 2012 12:06 pm

There are some folks responding here who clearly have never run a software project and have no apparent basis for their SWAGS and their crude suggestions that Anthony is somehow lying. Given that the average salary in Silicon Valley is now $100K, it is a good bet that you are not going to find a competent and qualified freelance programmers for much less than $100/hr. Assuming 50% of the budget is for design/programming/db then you are looking at about 200 hrs or 5 weeks. You are going to be very lucky to get this designed,tested, implemented and documented in that time period. If you off-shored it, we used programmers in Nepal, you might lower it somewhat but the costs of the inevitable miscommunications on this type of project can be very high. We did lots of survey and interactive reporting work and, even with our Nepalese programmers, we needed to charge $150 per hr. plus for the work. Good luck with the project.

wobble
February 15, 2012 12:07 pm

KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:58 am
…science teachers from teaching junkscience.

I fixed this phrase for you by adding the word “junk”, KarIL.

February 15, 2012 12:07 pm

[snip – policy]

R. Gates
February 15, 2012 12:09 pm

Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?

February 15, 2012 12:10 pm

“John Mason says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:29 am
88k for a website is the astonishing bit WRT Surface Stations. I know loads of people who could have done it for wayyy under that! As to the rest, guess we shall have to see….
REPLY: Actually it is $44K, and the phase 2 to keep it running may/may not be funded. Try hiring a good programmer for a year and purchasing the relevant equipment for $44K – Anthony”
$44K including app dev with a server and backup solution? Maybe you could work with us. A straight pizza box server with SCSI RAID runs at 10k. Cheap, server class, tape backup only just gets interesting at once you go past $1k. And cheap contract development is $25/hr. The market for contract runs at $50 usually. Then there is rack space, cabling (pulling a cable is $100), domain space, and bandwidth (commerical sites still get soaked).

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 12:10 pm

@craig lohle – No, but if you’re going to fight an ideological war, you need to keep your motives beyond reproach. Which, of course, Anthony has done.
Also, read the press release everyone, the damning document is faked.

3x2
February 15, 2012 12:10 pm

Had a quick look at the documents and I don’t see much to write about. “Shock : Organisation found doing what it was set up to do” (which is probably a news item on its own).
It is interesting watching “The Guardian” attempt to find something “juicy” while having ignored the likes of FoE, Greenpeace and hundreds of other carbon scammers for twenty years. Now private documents from Deutsche Bank or Goldman concerning the EU $100+ billion carbon trading scam – those I would pay to view.
While it is obviously not my in-box filling up with questions (and much else too I’ll wager) I would recommend that you spend the least amount of time possible dealing with this non event.

Garrett
February 15, 2012 12:11 pm

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud… 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.
Good point, but only if you are as critical of those who stole e-mails for use from the CRU during ClimateGate and then used quotes from those e-mails out of context and without consultation with the researchers. If not, then please refrain from such hypocritical wish wash.

Duke of Oil
February 15, 2012 12:13 pm

[snip – policy]

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 12:13 pm

Now you will need more help to moderate this site.
The ones like Exp will post comments that will have to be deleted.
As you delete them keep them where you can show it later as evidence.
They will use the delets to make false claims.
Media Matters will come lurking soon also.

Bob Diaz
February 15, 2012 12:14 pm

RE: 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.
———————————
It seems to me that reporting has become less and less about facts and more and more about their opinion.

February 15, 2012 12:15 pm

In my opinion, this is excellent news! Considering that a small amount of money is revealing more scientific facts than those produced by many billions of dollars, we can only appreciate the ROI for these investments.
For, it’s not embarrassing to receive money for work being excellently done!
Ecotretas

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 12:18 pm

Phil C says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:52 am
kim2ooo — You have a lot of Chutzpah saying I should provide a complete quotation at this website considering how the climategate emails were addressed here. That said, I don’t see a signifiacnt, material difference between my abbreviated quotation and yours. Please enlighen us.
———————————-
1 Big difference “Climategate emails” were verified.
2 We already know some of this leak is a hoax according to Heartland [ Read update above ]
BUT taking what sentence you used as a quote in whole
“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.”
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,
“You have a lot of Chutzpah” Yeppers!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😉

February 15, 2012 12:18 pm

Well Let me say this.
Anthony’s site got the climategate mails on Nov 17th
Anthony had these concerns that he asked me to help him with.
1. were the documents real.
2. was it legal to redistribute them.
From nov 17th to nov 19th I worked to see if I could find any signs of fakery.
I called steve mcIntyre to read him mails he had sent that showed up in the stack.
they were real. I argued with charles and Anthony and said this was proof they were real.
Anthony refused to accept this. So did charles.
I read the entire stack. Still Anthony wanted to be sure and check with lawyers.
I asked Tom Fuller to check with his lawyers. They said, without any word from CRU
we were on shakey ground.
On thursday nov 19th, we learned of a mail from CRU/UEA that alerted staff that mails
were posted. That was the confirmation we needed.
looks like desmog should have been more skeptical.
Also, we worried about the mails containing some false mails. Looks like that may have
happened to desmog

oakgeo
February 15, 2012 12:19 pm

Exp ( February 15, 2012 at 11:51 am) says:
“Anthony can have his little bit of fame and the proceeds from the dying fossil fuel industry.”
Check your facts; the fossil fuel industry is alive and well. Oil and other hydrocarbon (i.e. fossil fuel) consumption is rising worldwide. The low-hanging fruit may be gone, but new techniques are opening up huge potentials. Centuries of coal remain. Natural gas is at an historic price disconnect (especially in North America) from oil specifically because horizontal fracking technology has dramatically lowered costs, a technology that will also extend the life of many oil fields. We have hydrocarbons for centuries if we so wish.

Peter Miller
February 15, 2012 12:19 pm

I loved the few alarmist comments here, because they say everything about the CAGW cult.
Just because someone points out the facts and spends $x, then this is evil rubbish. While the other side takes the same facts, distorts the crap out of them, then spends >$2,000x on ‘research’, promotion, salaries etc and wonders why they are steadily losing the argument.
These alarmists essentially argue “How dare anyone give Anthony $44K to set up a website, when this money could have been much better spent by a member of the Team on advertising, distorting climate models, influencing impressionable children or something else equally important.
If nothing else, it helps demonstrate that ‘Big Oil’ funds alarmism and not scepticism, solely because it is the trendy poiltic thing to do. It also helps illustrate the huge difference in funding between sceptics and alarmists – the figure I used here of >2,000 times is probably far too low.
One day WUWT will be recognised for what it really is – a bastion of scientific sanity and realism in an increasingly corrupt scientific world.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 15, 2012 12:21 pm

Well, several points…
First off: Anthony, that’s ALL you got? For that kind of project? Wow, you run an efficient shop!
A single CISCO router can cost more than that.
Second: Now folks know why I’m so hard to reach via email. Never saw much reason to generate a load of fodder for lawyers, Yellow Journalists, and political fishing expeditions. (That said, I guess I’ll go check my email again and see what folks have sent to me)
Third: Remember that tertiary oil recovery works best with “liquid CO2 injection” into old “spent” oil wells. The “problem” is that buying liquid CO2 is expensive. Now if the Oil Companies could get the COAL Companies saddled with the cost of providing them liquid CO2 for ‘stripper wells’, they would make a bundle… So not a surprise that oil companies FUND WARMERS that then demonise coal; AND constantly demand “sequestration” of coal plant CO2. Exxon in particular has a document (that I can’t find at the moment but have linked to in the past) bemoaning that they had run out of cheap CO2 and needed to pay too much for it…
Fourth: In the spirit of “full disclosure”, I, too, have had “funding” from outside sources. I got $1000 one time from one donor. It came AFTER I’d done the port of GIStemp (and before I did all those graphs using the dT/dt method that showed various months having different trends; neighboring countries having opposing trends, etc.).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
At about the same time, Anthony gave me an old COMPAQ Evo desktop computer (used, but well loved) and with OpenOffice on it, so I could make decent graphs. I’d estimate the market value of it at less than $200. Still: Thanks, Anthony, it made all those dT/dt graphs and more.
I’ve also had a few dozens of donations from folks at my web site directly, mostly in $10 to $20 sizes from just a few dedicated readers. Oh, and another bogger picked up my air fair and hotel to go to Chicago for the Heartland sponsored climate conference (for which I am again highly grateful… it was the highpoint experience of my ‘global warming’ experience). All told I put it at somewhere near, but likely under, $2000. That’s over several years of work. I figure that’s about the dinner bill for one NIGHT by someone like Hansen or AlGore on the government dime / dollar / kilobucks.
(Why no names on those donors? I do not have their permission, having not talked to any of them in months. Or years.)
Frankly, the complete LACK of any ability to generate funding is why I ended up taking a contract on the other side of the country (doing project management for an entertainment company) to keep beans and rice on the table. I had hoped to, by demonstrating skill and understanding via porting GISTemp, catch the eye of folks with money. What I found out was that there were no folks with buckets of money; just a little bit, and it was being closely managed.
While I would love nothing more than to be running a data center making clean climate / weather / temperature data, or even doing research into the (IMHO bogus) ways it is manipulated by the Hadley Center / NCDC / NASA GISS: They get money in the $Hundreds of $Billions (over years) and on this side it’s $1000 in 3 years and a free lunch…
It is very clear that the strategy of parasitizing government via NGOs and NSF grants is far more effective at sucking in the cash for the ‘warmers’; while living on legitimate ‘hand outs’ from private donors will ALMOST cover the cost of coffee… (At an average of $333 / year, and with $10 / can for coffee, that’s one can a week and 1/2, if I make it myself… Or about 1 Starbucks a day if I buy it… )
Also in full disclosure:
I really really wish I could “embrace the dark side” and just chuck my sense of honesty in the bucket. I’m pretty sure I could be rolling in dough very quickly just by lining up with that NGO, Government Trough, Oil Funding, AlGore Machine side of things. But I can’t. “The truth just is. -E.M.Smith” and I can’t change the truth. So like it or not, I’m stuck on the side of poverty and truth. (Maybe we need a ‘Skeptics Monastery’ 😉
So there you go, Warmers, feel free to now tar me with the brush of “FUNDED!!!!” I’m sure you can find a way…
(The irony of it is that a full search of email archives by Warmers is likely to cost more than the actual funding provided. An amusing factoid…)

February 15, 2012 12:21 pm

Warmists. Home goal. Typical.

Koos
February 15, 2012 12:21 pm

Why on earth would you publice data from NOAA (aeronautics according to Heartland, if they even do not know where NOAA stands for, what could they know about physics?)
if they – NOAA – publish these data themselves. What about the remark about stations too close to buildings etc. These stations are already taken out of data bases to calculate world averaged temperatures. Besides USA is just a small part on the world, do you think that everywhere on this earth temperature measurements are doen too close too buildings or black roads?
Let me guess about these reader friendly graphically presentations: outliers will be out and outliers are stations with higher temperature readings than expected in comparsion with the average temperatures of these stations. It is so obvious what the goal is of this data handling.
Some text is on paper but some text is just spoken and only few know these words.
[Reply: You say: “Let me guess about these reader friendly graphically presentations: outliers will be out and outliers are stations with higher temperature readings than expected in comparsion with the average temperatures of these stations. It is so obvious what the goal is of this data handling.” You are confusing Anthony, who I know to be completely honest, with various government bureaucrats and university types who do exactly what you “guess” Anthony would do. ~dbs, mod.]

Birdieshooter
February 15, 2012 12:24 pm

@ Chris Colose
If we are all being duped by things like the sea level post why doesnt anyone from the AGW crowd ever undupe us. No, all we get is a lot of pedantic, shrill whines from the pseudo-scientists that never add to the science but rather just a lot of personal attacks. Some science

February 15, 2012 12:25 pm

In the end Anthony’s project will be judged by the facts. I’ll suggest a totally open approach to the budget , schedule, and design process. There’s nothing to hide and take an opportunity to show
people how openness works. Show the IPCC how to take comments. let folks review it. Build it in the open. Just a thought.

LOL in Oregon
February 15, 2012 12:25 pm

Haaa, Haaa, Haaaa, Haaaa!
$6.5 million?
Mice nuts!
How much was spend getting all the attendees to that last conference in S. Africa?
$40K for a web site?
Must be a cheap date!
Who ever heard of that cheap a web site having any glitz!
Must be hard data site, no glamor, just the facts or no one would look at it!
On the other hand, isn’t it amazing what the minions of the AGW religion will do to preserve their their access to the public till!
LOL in Oregon

Robin Guenier
February 15, 2012 12:26 pm

I hope this story gets wide publicity: all these warmist hysterics at the shock/horror discovery that the evil Heartland has an annual budget of $6.5m (c.f. Greenpeace’s measly $310m) and has the temerity to actually fund people who share its views. Why are these well-heeled warmists so concerned about a tiny, ill-funded organisation? It illustrates perfectly their lack of confidence in the validity of their claims and in the real strength of their position.
And as Heartland is, I believe, the only body of any significance promoting CAGW scepticism, this torpedoes those assertions about “a well-funded, highly organised denial machine”. Is Big Oil asleep – where’s the massive funding?

SandyInDerby
February 15, 2012 12:26 pm

Hi Anthony,
do people think you do all the work you do on fresh air? I go with the theory that once the sums involved become known then the ranks of scepticism will grow.
Have you seen this (via Bishop Hill) your $44K pales into insignificance against the UK university funding; £1 = $1.57 so the funding is over $100 million.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/uk-universities-receive-72-million-p-a-for-climate-research/

Duke of Oil
February 15, 2012 12:27 pm

How do we know these documents were stolen? The word of the “victim”? Didn’t UEA-CRU claim theft too?
I didn’t believe UEA-CRU and I don’t believe Heartland either. This sounds like the work of an insider either angry with Heartland or a conscientious whistle blower.
Consistency, people. Don’t add hypocrisy and double standards to the list of things the other side will take up for their attacks.
I’m all for throwing Heartland and cohorts under the bus. The funding for Heartland is almost certainly going to dry up anyway so it’s no additional loss and a good way to save some face. Not maintaining the anonymity of donors who were promised it is incompetent and won’t be tolerated. Nobody gets a second chance with the same donors after screwing up that badly. New donors will be scared off. Whowever was milking this cow is going to have find other means of paying the bills going forward.

KarlL
February 15, 2012 12:28 pm

Watts:
> “Show me where “fossil fuel money” is involved, provide a citation.”
What are you talking about?! Have you not read the leaked documents from Heartland?! Do you not know they are funded from fossil fuel money?
Or are you simply pretending that because the money is paid to you via Heartland rather than directly from the Kochs then it is no longer ‘dirty’ money? That would be disingenuous, at best.
> “the Climate Research Unit in the UK is funded by…”
Another weak attempt at distracting from the fact that you have accepted money that originates from the fossil industry via an organization that wants to shut out opposing opinions and stop science teachers from teaching science. Have you no integrity?
REPLY: And again, provide a citation that shows I’ve accepted fossil fuel money. At the same time explain why it is OK for the CRU to get funding from BP, Shell, and the DOE – Anthony

R Barker
February 15, 2012 12:29 pm

I suppose it goes without saying that the subject article in the Guardian by Suzanne Goldenberg lacks journalistic objectivity. Her repeated choice of adjectives and phrases throughout the entire article flag this as an editorial opinion, not a news report. Maybe that is what was intended.

Eric Seufert
February 15, 2012 12:32 pm

I had to go over to the guardien article. Pathetic. Writting like it is a so aweful to get funding. Compared to billions funding CO2 will kill us? Laughable. I had to write their email as to how pathetic it was.

alasmaci
February 15, 2012 12:32 pm

Anthony, considering Dr. Hansen’s response, should you not lay off the “growing financial scandal” business? You can legitimately criticize his activism and its influence on his science without resorting to smears like that.

Pete in Cumbria UK
February 15, 2012 12:33 pm

Grasping at straws and in doing so exposing what a bunch of utter hypocrites they really are.
If they really were the bunch of touchy-feely bleeding heart Bambi loving think of the children caring socialist types they crack themselves up to be, they would help fund the sceptic position themselves. They would realise that such support and egalitarianism would reinforce their message/position.
But no.
They go all out on a grasping, money driven and self serving agenda that reveals their true colours.
Gawd help us -because as is being revealed – warmista only help themselves.

February 15, 2012 12:35 pm

Ohhhhh, a Seth Borenstein alert.
Can’t wait to see that “impartial and balanced” story.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 12:36 pm

You Guys are unreal says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
“As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.”
Errm, you guys called the HACKER who stole from the CRU a ‘hero’. Whereas in this case it’s been reported as an inside whistleblower. That’s a whole different ball game.

Same goes for the Palin leak. Now, please contact the UK police and inform then that is was a hack and not a leak.

Phil C
February 15, 2012 12:39 pm

kim2ooo —
This is all I’m asking:
1. Define “controversy” and “uncertainty” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education
2. Define “Normal Science” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education

Stephen Richards
February 15, 2012 12:39 pm

Craig Loehle says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:59 am
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.
THE QUOTE OF THE DAY !!

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 12:40 pm

It’s not hypocrisy, Duke of Oil – Heartland has explained exactly how the documents were obtained. It wasn’t “a hacker”, it was “the person who called and faked their identity”. It’s basic social engineering, it happens all the time. There’s no real reason to not believe their story. I mean, they COULD be lying, but nothing in their behavior suggests it.

Capo
February 15, 2012 12:40 pm

@ Craig Loehle
Nice to see you here, but your post disappoints.
I’ve read your name in the documents and would like to here a comment of you if it’s true that you’ve got money from Heartland.

Alexander K
February 15, 2012 12:41 pm

It speaks volumes for Leo Hickman’s and DeSmogBlog’s credibility and journalistic ethics, not to mention their veracity, to learn that the document/s they built this entire piece of childish and vituperative nonsense from is a fake! And all of that hatred spilling from the Hickman’s idiotic followers is illuminating, if not terribly enlightening.

Stephen Richards
February 15, 2012 12:41 pm

Duke of Oil says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Anthony, is this our theif ?,

Capo
February 15, 2012 12:43 pm

@ Anthony
It’s true, that Heartland has up to know one donor (Anonymous Donor), giving $44,000 for your project. But if I’ve read correctly the documents, Heartland pledged $88,000 for your project and hopes to find further donors for the other 44,000.

Tom in Florida
February 15, 2012 12:46 pm

Koos says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:53 am
You have no right to be informed of anything a private person does with private money. Only those providing the money have that right. For those using public funds, we the taxpayers all have the right to know what our money is being spent on and what the results of that spending are because it is we the taxpayers that are providing the money.

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 12:47 pm

The AGW posters will not use facts, they will not respond to the facts presented by those here.
Approach this understanding how they fight. You will wear your fingers to the bone typing in facts only to have the subject changed, a personal attack on you or your grammar as a response, or any number of misdirections. Its all they have as they passed the fact check sign long ago.

u.k.(us)
February 15, 2012 12:48 pm

So, the leaker, has unintentionally brought to the fore, the baser instincts of the CAGW religion.
Or, was it all just counter-espionage ?
No matter, result the same.
I do feel sorry for Anthony, being stuck in the middle once again 🙁

KR
February 15, 2012 12:51 pm

Very interesting – looking at the Heartland Institute, they claim that the “Strategy” document is a fake. I’m finding that a bit hard to believe. Why?
Anthony Watts has confirmed the $44,000 already generated by the HI for his website (which, incidentally, is quite reasonable for that level of effort), and the goal of $90,000. Bob Carter has confirmed that he has received monies as well. Both of these are in agreement with the “Strategy” document – and as such confirmations of content.
From having looked at the strategy .PDF, it is clearly a scanned document, from hardcopy. I would suspect that it’s real.

I would find it hard to support a group that supports “…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.” Or that has spends hundreds of thousands to “…undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports…”. Those are not the actions of a group who believes the data supports them.
REPLY: Actually two things show it is fake.
1. Heartland confirms they do all communications with Board members electronically, not with printed pages.
2. The $90K figure is wrong, and not repeated in any other documents. my budget numbers were based on specific budget costs. Yet the fake doc rounds up to $90,000, a sign of trying to inflate the issue.
– Anthony

Robert in Calgary
February 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Stay strong Anthony.
This is more proof of how successful you have become. And, in the end, it’s a way to get some free publicity for the project…..
I’ve also just made a donation.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Compare and contrast the funding. This really is David V Goliath.
DAVID
US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0
Heartland Institute $6.4m (a shockingly high figure)
GOLIATH
NSW climate change $750m
US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m
I propose government funding for sceptical scientists, that should end this kind of hullabaloo once and for all. But nooooooooooooooooooo because the science is settled despite 15 years of a temperature standstill. A deceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The curious return of snow in recent years which was just a thing of the past. Even on Tunisia’s desert for goodness sake.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/

wte9
February 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Anthony,
I read much of the post but did not see an answer to this question: Were you going to disclose the funding when the website was launched? Sorry if it that was answered and I missed it.
REPLY: Sure, when the new website is launched, it will show how it all came together, but that’s still months ahead – Anthony

February 15, 2012 12:58 pm

It was fascinating to read how the Heartland documents (faked/altered and others) prove, once and for all, that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is so high and dominated by positive feedbacks that the human race is doomed due to CO2.
\sarc
I wonder if all this jumping around by the alarmists will precipitate the release of the password for the remaining Climategate emails?

Mark F
February 15, 2012 1:01 pm

Perhaps Lefebvre will pull (his rumored) funding from desmog, now, lest his own reputation be further eroded.

Bruckner8
February 15, 2012 1:02 pm

I’m thrilled Anthony gets funding of any kind!

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:03 pm

Exp says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm
……………………………
And you have openly claimed not to have taken money from these sources previously on this blog, Anthony. You have been dishonest.

I vaguely recall that the comment was made well BEFORE the funding. In which way is that dishonest. Example: I have never been to China (true). Tomorrow I get on a plane and go to China. Am I being dishonest?

RockyRoad
February 15, 2012 1:03 pm

KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Another weak attempt at distracting from the fact that you have accepted money that originates from the fossil industry via an organization that wants to shut out opposing opinions and stop science teachers from teaching science. Have you no integrity?

And have you no brains?
Do you eat food that is produced by energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
Do you live in a house that is produced by energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
Do you drive a car that a) comes from raw materials, b) was built and delivered, and c) uses energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
Do you use a computer and internet that is powered by energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
If your answer is “Yes” to any of the above, then you are an absolute hyprocite (and brainless because you’ve given it no thought).
If your answer is “No” to all the above, then we’ll just call you Fred Flinstone and ask how living in a fantasy works for you.

RockyRoad
February 15, 2012 1:04 pm

The reason this is assymetrical warfare is because regardless of how much money the CAGW side spends, it doesn’t change the truth. Period.

David
February 15, 2012 1:05 pm

TheFlyingOrc says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:53 am
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.
==========================
Dear Orc, please explain the “powerfull” case against it if Anthony accepted any funding for his personal time. He has created a web site that attracts millions of hits supplying factual knowldege not articulated in the MSM. If, as a result of this, his time is rewarded financially, and enables a better more informative product what is the problem?

timg56
February 15, 2012 1:05 pm

Koos,
Are you involved with science education?
I’ve as a volunteer for over 16 years and I can honestly say that I wouldn’t let some of the people over at sks or RC anywhere near a classroom of kids. They are preachers not educators. Any good teacher wouldn’t allow the term “climate change” in a science course. In Government, Social Studies, Ethics, or related courses, sure. But not a science class. Climate change is not a science subject, it is a political and policy one. Math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc are science topics.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:07 pm

R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?

What if it was leaked by a whistleblower? They have protection under UK law I understand so there would be no crime to act against.

son of mulder
February 15, 2012 1:08 pm

“The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain”
And $80,000 was spent spreading the message that 1+1=2.
$200,000 spent spreading the message that gravity acts downwards.
A massive $300,000 spent spreading the message that water is wet.
How could anyone with a brain possibly teach that climate change is not controversial and uncertain?

Jim G
February 15, 2012 1:08 pm

“oldgamer56 says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:16 am
Anthony,
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.
Kaboom says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:19 am
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.”
We have a long way to go to change public perception and are fighting an uphill battle with today’s complete lack of real journalism and a left leaning press corps. Example:
I listen to NPR to keep on top of what the “enemy” is promulgating. This morning there was a brief item on “fashion”. In this piece NPR noted that although coats had been “out of fashion” for some time “probably due to global warming” they were again becoming more popular. One of the factors they noted for the US was the “improving economy”.
I noted that though this little diatribe covered both US and European fashion, and global warming was mentioned, no mention was was made of the extreme cold being endured right now in Europe and the possibility that global warming was no longer an issue there, or that folks over there might be buying an extra coat to wear to bed.
So, NPR got in a plug for the Obama administration regarding the supposed improving economy is spite of the fact of the vast underemployment and falsification of the unemployment stats being used which do not count people who have given up looking for work. Plus a plug for global warming all in a fashion article!
This is an example of the insidious nature of of the propaganda being constantly used by the left to bombard the the public in our country and imbue in them the proper leftists opinions.

Ken Hall
February 15, 2012 1:08 pm

“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 …”
44K for a website is a lot. 44K for an entire research project, of which a website is only a part, is a pittance. And 44k for a research project that has the backing of a blog that reaches the millions of people reached by WUWT is an absolute steal! You can buy a script kiddy writing rubbish code for 44k a year. You cannot get a software engineer, meteorologist, project manager and promoter with the experience and global public reach of Anthony Watts for 44K for very long.
Importantly, what is being produced is NOAA data, unadjusted just presented better and clearer. As stated, NOAA should be doing this anyway. Unlike the very very well paid warmists, Mr Watts is not being hired to fudge, adjust or bend the data to fit a political argument.

Steve S
February 15, 2012 1:11 pm

Hi Anthony,
Love your blog, I don’t give a damn about your receiving funding for a special project. I’ll continue visiting, and reading because there are precious few resources out there that present contrary viewpoints, and evidence to ‘accepted science’. WUWT is one of the better resources that do.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:15 pm

R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?

What if it was leaked by a whistleblower? They have protection under UK law I understand so there would be no crime to act against.
Now some of you angry posters need to realise that at least one of the key documents is fake.

February 15, 2012 1:16 pm

Severian @ 11:57 AM : “Why, if you were able to see the real data, simply presented, sans “adjustments” and commentary from the AGW clergy as to what it all means, in a nice predigested press release.”
It took over 100 comments, but I think you finally touched on the why of their over the top reaction: They don’t want the general public to know what a sorry state the temperature monitoring stations are in and how they have been moving into the UHI for the last half century, artificially jacking up temperatures. Once Anthony and Heartland goes live with this, not only do we see the actual site locations and the actual data, but more importantly we see where the sites are not located (Arctic, mountains, Antarctic, etc) – places where cooling would show up early and often.
Congratulations to Anthony and Heartland. The truth is the ultimate weapon in this fight. Cheers-

Gary Hladik
February 15, 2012 1:18 pm

Is anyone else wondering if “FOIA” will take this opportunity to release the key to the remaining Climategate 2 E-mails?

MarkW
February 15, 2012 1:19 pm

Peter says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:09 am
I love the way you use the fact free, propaganda driven campaigns against second hand smoke and CFC’s as the standard by which you want to be measured.

David
February 15, 2012 1:20 pm

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
Lots of fun, eh? “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” is nice, though I note that the attempts to spin this are already starting.
——————————————————————
Mr Connolley, get real. At the most this was sloppy writing and the author meant to say …”from teaching “BAD” science. (You know like Mann’s broken hockey stick and all the non peer review IPCC alarmist literature since proven false)
Connolley goes on
Heartland’s statement that “no more than 5% of total budget from a single corporate entity” now looks to have been very carefully crafted, now we know that 20% came from a single individual!
————————————- SO??? God bless him.
Connolley swings and misses again, but thinks its a home run-
“At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports” is also pleasantly honest – no pretence there of actually doing any real science.
————————————————————————————-
The NIPCC use professional science literature and articles, not non peer review IPCC alarmist literature since proven false. Your view that is is not real science does not make it so. The earth was just as round before mankind proved it. CO2 is a benefit to the biosphere, and does not produce catestrophic warming, despite your blind passion that it does.

e k johnson
February 15, 2012 1:20 pm

The hypocrisy here is amazing. Certain groups have certainly conspired to breach FOIA in order to hide the data, methodologies and reproducibility of their results. And they have done so using public funds. But the Repeaters (“journalists” sic) focus on a privately funded project which is entirely open concerning the methodology and data which is to receive a paltry $44K of PRIVATE capital.
Compare that to the immense funding for the Universities and Institutions such as NOAA who recently sent a “anonymous” (laughs) survey to their staff to find out what amounts to their a political view of or belief in AGW, quite obviously with the objective of marking out “trouble makers” ready for ousting in the next round of convenient redundancies and to stall their careers. This is the definition of a witch hunt. It is the definition of un-American and all Americans should be enraged by that survey.
PS someone clever should go to this, ask some questions, and report on the answers. Try to film it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-mythbusting-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Feb-28.html

Wade
February 15, 2012 1:20 pm

You Guys are unreal says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
“As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.”
Errm, you guys called the HACKER who stole from the CRU a ‘hero’. Whereas in this case it’s been reported as an inside whistleblower. That’s a whole different ball game.

There are two key differences. The Climategate emails are legally ours to begin with because of the Freedom of Information laws. The second difference is this Heartland is funded by private interests and CRU is funded by taxpayers.

MarkW
February 15, 2012 1:21 pm

Paul Butler says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:10 am
1) FIghting the lies of the warmists, is not the only thing Heartland spends money on.
2) The groups listed are not the only ones trying to spread the AGW lies, as several others have mentioned, many govts are in on that game.
3) Who are these well heeled organizations who’s sole goal is fighting the AGW lies?

DavidS
February 15, 2012 1:24 pm

Anthony
This will probably run for a while, but don’t let it distract from your work here. Your explanation above is coherent, completely believable and prompt. As a general rule i am not that concerned about how you fund your blog. The good thing about this blog is that all comments and commentators are welcome, providing dacorum is preserved. Other blogs could learn from this attitude.
The project sounds like a good idea and relatively inexpensive, why aren’t NOAA doing and funding it thmselves????
Just a thought before I post this comment – How much would each regular WUWT reader have to put in to the TIP jar to fund the entire project? It would make an intersting story. Im good for $50, providing it could be directly attributed to this project. Im in the UK so that would beabout £35 at the current of exchange.
Best wishes
DavidS

Gary Hladik
February 15, 2012 1:25 pm

Gary Hladik says (February 15, 2012 at 1:18 pm: “Is anyone else wondering if “FOIA” will take this opportunity to release the key to the remaining Climategate 2 E-mails?”
Bill Williams says (February 15, 2012 at 12:58 pm): “I wonder if all this jumping around by the alarmists will precipitate the release of the password for the remaining Climategate emails?”
Oops. OK, obviously others are wondering! 🙂

February 15, 2012 1:26 pm

To all those complaining about Anthony receiving some thousands of dollars in a one time donation to provide information that overpaid government bureaucrats won’t provide, let’s compare grants to just one climate alarmist.
Recent Michael Mann grants:
Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons: 
$250,000
Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases:
 $1,884,991
Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model: 
$541,184
A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices:
 $330,000
AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship,: $23,000
Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana: $759,928
Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions: $459,000
Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium:
 $68,065
Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC): 
$100,000
Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results: $102,000
Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia: 
$315,000
Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability: $133,000
Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation: $14,400
Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years: $20,775
Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere: 
$214,700
Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport: $20,775
Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison: 
$381,647
The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change:
 $266,235
Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations: $270,000
Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium: 
$78,000
Total:
$6,232,700
[Mann collected $1.8 million to ‘study mosquito vectors’ – in addition to many $millions more in other payola. Why would someone pay Mann, instead of a biologist or an epidemiologist, to study disease transmission? It was payola, pure and simple. And I can’t seem to find Mann’s report. Maybe one of our resident trolls can find it.]
And that’s only Michael Mann’s payola, and an incomplete list at that. There are lots of alarmists on the climate grant gravy train, on both sides of the Atlantic. But the trolls monkey-pile on Anthony instead.
Hypocrites worry about the mote in someone else’s eye, while ignoring the 2×4 in their own eye. A textbook case of psychological projection by blatant hypocrites, starting with the very first post.

peeke
February 15, 2012 1:27 pm

@Tucci78
“peeke, have you got anything factual with which to prove that what was reported in that Daily Mail article was in error, or are you just condemning this particular newspaper as “not a reliable scientific source“?
Because, bubbeleh, that’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (evading address of the substance by attacking the source instead).”
The argumentum ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy when used in an argument. I.e. something is not right or wrong because of who stated it. Checking the credentials of a certain person at the door however is more than useful. The thing is you can do this the way Lucia does: Constantly seeing how the current global temperature anomaly compares to models. And lo and behold, even with the spike the AGW croud mentioned as the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH, the doom scenario doesn’t hold. When you have that, why on earth would you check the Daily Mail?
Mind you, ΔT in and after the Dalton minimum, the sort of change is solar activity currently expected, was about 0.08K. And if you would dismiss the idea of a frozen Thames simply because of a Dalton-esque minimum, you will also be able to consider the current flattening of the line not caused by solar activity decrease. Hence it must be something else (Hint: The climate system currently has a negative feedback to forcings..)

David
February 15, 2012 1:27 pm

Michael Tobiss says
(“I don’t think the other “green” groups are especially comparable as they have broader missions. Whether they ought to is another question. For instance, there’s not much percentage in protecting ecosystems under rapid climate change scenarios.”)
—————-
The heartland Inst has a broader focus then most of the green groups.

Bill Illis
February 15, 2012 1:29 pm

A few million to talk about the facts versus billions spent on propaganda.
I’ll take inexpensive facts over extremely expensive propaganda any day of the week.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:29 pm

KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm
———————-
You talk about oil funding yet you CONVENIENTLY ignore the points I made above. One example is CRU receiving funding from BP and Shell. Is that OK by you. I want an answer.
See also Pachauri’s links to BIG OIL. Is that OK by you. If yes then that’s what I call hypocrisy.

February 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) said @ February 15, 2012 at 10:19 am

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?

I can do better than that! In 1998 I was paid $AU65/hr for six hours of computer training by an oil company 🙂

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 1:30 pm

Phil C says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm
kim2ooo —
This is all I’m asking:
1. Define “controversy” and “uncertainty” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education
2. Define “Normal Science” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education.
————————————————
Mr C.
When we are not allowed to discuss the controversy or uncertainties involving climate science in school…when a hypothesis without observational empirical evidence is taken as fact….you are not teaching normal science.

MarkW
February 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Koos says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the contaminated sites were already removed from the data? Until Anthony’s work, the NOAA did not know that any of their sites were contaminated.
As to the rest of the world, why do you believe that it is in any better shape than the US?

February 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Chris Colose: Arrogance does not make anyone correct, regardless of what the warmist establishment currently thinks.

TomRude
February 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Let’s not forget that Desmog is owned by Hoggan the Chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation whose funding has been increasingly under scrutiny since the sleuthing work by Vivian Krause.
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/david-suzuki-foundation-70-million.html
Moreover, Suzuki himself is being called for being a political lobbyist masquerading under the guise of a charitable organization by the journalist Erza Levant of the Sun Network
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/charity-or-lobby-group/1439306081001
So obviously Suzuki’s seat is getting hotter and since Hoggan is in the PR business… $44,000 should be enough smog over Suzuki’s tens of millions…
Computer says No.

February 15, 2012 1:35 pm

Chris Colose said @ February 15, 2012 at 11:15 am

Whatever a “warmist” is, they probably are right, because they have that stuff called ‘physics’ and ‘data’ to back them up. The problem is you have to get educated in the physics, and you need to learn the data, its limitations, and how it applies/does not apply to the problem of interest. Despite what everyone thinks, you can’t read a blog to get all that.

Presumably you have some evidence that Robert G Brown doesn’t have any expertise in physics:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Where is your evidence?

1DandyTroll
February 15, 2012 1:35 pm

Apparently the smog blog doesn’t understand conservatives don’t do nothing until there’s a reason to do anything, that’s why conservatives rarely, if ever, lie. Although communists always lie so they think everybody else also lie, that’s why communist hippies always paint themselves into a corner, it’s infallible. :p

February 15, 2012 1:35 pm

I am always amazed that the warmers keep looking at funding and ad hominems instead of data and relevant facts.
Guess that just shows that the average warmer is incapable of evaluating facts, and so must rely on the irrelevent for their conclusions.
BTW, DeSmog: can you show us any real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming?
Thanks
JK

David
February 15, 2012 1:36 pm

You Guys are unreal says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
“As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.”
Errm, you guys called the HACKER who stole from the CRU a ‘hero’. Whereas in this case it’s been reported as an inside whistleblower. That’s a whole different ball game.
==================
Dear Youguys, why is every CAGW proponent so blind and illogical in their comments? First of all one man said, “I hope they go to jail”; not “us guys”. Also ,the sceptics have for a long time maintained that FOIA likely was not a hacker, but an inside whislte blower. Finally, CRU is a public institution, whereas heartland is private. Please come back when you can make one cogent point.

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 1:37 pm

timg56 says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Well Said!!!!!

CodeTech
February 15, 2012 1:37 pm

Seriously, $44k for a programmer for a year?
As a “good” programmer and Web 2.0 developer, I can assure you that is more like 3 months worth. IF I’m on board with a project.
The group of unknown names posting on this thread are clearly unaware of, well, much.

JonasM
February 15, 2012 1:37 pm

I prefer to wait to see some proof that the key document was faked. If it’s true that, according to their press release, “It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact” then, unless the contradictory information is of a sensitive nature, I would expec that HI will provide it.
Until that happens, or HI reveals other information that someone else created the document, we only have evidence for the document being a fake, not proof.

Nial
February 15, 2012 1:38 pm

Anthony,
I clicked through to see what the Guardian had to say and one of the things that struck me was this sentence….
“But Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent _anti-science_ blogs”
Is this not almost libelous?
I’m pretty laid back but the constant lies and deceit from the warmists is really starting to piss me off.

Matt
February 15, 2012 1:39 pm

Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous, and you deserve this Heartland scandal. Nothing you say can ever stand up in court, as the science of climate change already has. You are a disgraceful little blogger and a merchant of doubt about a very serious issue. Good luck spinning this story, hack.
Love,
Every future human on this planet

DirkH
February 15, 2012 1:39 pm

Does anyone read DeSmogBlog?
Their Alexa rank: 144,552
WUWT: 15,974
They’re just jealous. Hey, don’t be mad, DeSmogBlog. It could be worse.
Realclimate: 223,449

Thomas
February 15, 2012 1:42 pm

Private individuals giving donations to private organizations to help other private individuals conduct private activities. Wow, that’s all they could come up with?
Keep up the good work, Anthony, you’re obviously getting “The Team” and friends worried…

February 15, 2012 1:48 pm

coeruleus says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:55 am
. . . 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. . .

The so-called ‘environmental’ organizations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Foundation are also tax-exempt, yet propagandize and proselytize at every turn, including testifying before Congressional committees. Should they also be “classified as lobbyists”?
In point of fact, there are specific rules in law that define ‘lobbyists’ at both federal and state levels.
What is ludicrous is how the warmist press and blogs are crowing over the discovery that Anthony received a small grant from a minor think tank like Heartland for a public-service website, while vast sums flow into all manner of government and academic entities for the avowed purpose of revealing the purported dangers of man-made ‘global warming’. It is no accident that in many fields of science, to get a grant from institutions like the NSF, you have to demonstrate its relevance to ‘climate change’ (viz. this post from yesterday: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/a-fish-story-from-antarctica/#more-56596 ).
I hope some other organizations and individuals with deep pockets will now seize the opportunity to publicly offer grants to independent scientists and researchers like E. M. Smith, Willis Eschenbach, Steve McIntyre, and of course Anthony Watts, to enable them to continue their work without having to rely on ‘day jobs’. Perhaps someone could establish an award like the MacArthur Foundation’s ‘genius’ awards for such brave pioneers in non-governmental, truly skeptical science.
/Mr Lynn

manicbeancounter
February 15, 2012 1:48 pm

DeSmogblog are revealing some terrible truths. Heartland is trying to influence people by funding people that help make real-world data and climate-related science intelligible to the masses. So that ordinary folk can understand the real world. What is more, some folks love it so much that (allegedly) they are willing to shell out real money to spread the message. You have those who practice the dark arts of public relations and political spin really scared.
If you look at DeSmogBlog (or its links) you will not find out the following.
1. Heartland, on its website has 7 policy areas with 20 staff (out of 40 total). Environment issues occupy 3 of those.
2. In each of six areas, (Environment is one) it produces a monthly newsletter on topical issues. Sent free to 8400 elected officials, both Republican and Democrat. I am sure the CIA uses the same methods to remain secretive about its objectives.
3. By far the largest recipient of monthly grants for environment is Craig D Idso. DeSmog (nor the Sourcewatch link) provides links to the nasty co2science.org that this money helps fund. This provides a database, with summaries, of peer reviewed literature on (a) proxy studies for/against the MWP (b) ocean acidification studies (c) CO2 effects on plant growth (b) instant graphs of temperature anomalies.
If Heartland continues spending $1m+ a year on letting people know directly about climate change, it is going to throw out of work tens of thousands of people (many with doctorates) who spend long hours and billions a year of taxpayers money trying to put an alternative spin on the data. People should realise that Heartland and their cohorts are wrecking a whole industry and must be stopped.
On the other hand, a re-working of the assumptions behind economic models produced by Greenpeace and the UNIPCC, could show that wrecking this industry could make the average person on this plant 44% better off by 2050 than with the wrong set of policies, and have hundreds of millions of more lovely people around as well.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2011/07/20/ipcc-on-the-knife-edge-renewables-scenarios/

Kevin611
February 15, 2012 1:49 pm

Keep up the good work. The truth will prevail. This will turn into another nail in the coffin for desmogblog.

DirkH
February 15, 2012 1:50 pm

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
“Lots of fun, eh? “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” is nice, though I note that the attempts to spin this are already starting.”
Wonderful. Wikipedia Winston Smith falls for the propaganda of his own site, then complains about spin.

KR
February 15, 2012 1:51 pm

Anthony“The $90K figure is wrong, and not repeated in any other documents. my budget numbers were based on specific budget costs. Yet the fake doc rounds up to $90,000, a sign of trying to inflate the issue.”
My apologies, you are correct – while the “Strategy” document stated:
“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data” (emphasis added)
the budget (a separate document) lists:
$88,000 Surface Stations Project
Payments to ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create web site featuring data from NOAA’s new
network of surface stations. First payment of $44,000 in January, second of same amount
contingent on fundraising around mid-year.

So going from that document, $44,000 budgeted, another $44,000 contingently targeted, $88,000 total – not $90,000. I was off by 2.2% from reading the strategy document. However, considering the small difference, and the fact that “around $90,000” (not $44,000/$44,000) is stated in the strategy document, I hope you understand why I made that error. And again – that’s certainly not out of line for a significant web project!

As above, I also find it curious that the ‘strategy’ document is scanned hardcopy. I would think that someone faking a document to go with a set of existing documents would use the same technique. And unless the budget has been significantly altered, all of the items in the strategy document are listed as expenses in the budget – including aspects that you, Carter, and Wojick have all confirmed.

Framl
February 15, 2012 1:52 pm

The politicization of climate science isn’t a conservative, libertarian or liberal issue: We need to reach people of all points of view. Funding from an organization with a particular political viewpoint may make it harder to reach those who don’t hold that political point of view.
Next time, consider asking your readers first for funding and perhaps assistance with programming. If you think your reader’s generosity is smaller than the financial needs of your ambitions, perhaps ask Heartland fund any shortfall.

DirkH
February 15, 2012 1:52 pm

Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous, and you deserve this Heartland scandal. Nothing you say can ever stand up in court, as the science of climate change already has.”
You mean like Stefan Rahmstorff, PIK scientist who slandered a German journalist and lost in court?

February 15, 2012 1:53 pm

hey guys check the document properties.. the forged document is missing something.

Sun Spot
February 15, 2012 1:55 pm

Anthony, keep doing the good science I see hear every day, the funding is a red herring.
It seems you now have a new regular contributor by the name of Bill Connolley, you know you’re scaring the CAGW crowd when Bill comes here for some good science.
Keep Up The Good Work Anthony.

February 15, 2012 1:55 pm

The Git notes that WUWT has devoted quite a large amount of space to debunking climate sceptic myths, not just CAGW myths. OTOH CAGW sites seem to delight in claiming that sceptics deny the fact that Earth has warmed since the LIA which is clearly a LIE. They also reveal themselves by denigrating the concept of Anthony transforming NOAA data into easily comprehended form. Some of us here will remember how Steve McIntyre was blocked from accessing data paid for from the public purse.
Clearly the CAGWers are afraid not just of the fantasy of CAGW, but allowing sceptics access to the data they purport supports their case. If CAGW was real, wouldn’t they want us to access the data?

Frank K.
February 15, 2012 1:56 pm

Smokey says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Smokey – here’s some more data for you. If you want to see what our climate heros at NASA and NOAA have been raking in, go here:
http://php.app.com/fed_employees10/search.php
Publicly available federal government salary information at your fingertips. Just select Goddard Space Flight Center or NOAA and type in a name. In particular (since climate folks are interested in trends), look at the salary increases netted by our pals at GISS and NOAA from 2009 – 2010. This was a time when the non-government economy was in the tank – and friends of mine were being let go from their jobs.

Peter Miller
February 15, 2012 1:57 pm

I believe the alarmists ranting here (and Al Gore etc) should be awarded the age old American Indian title of “Walking Eagle”.
Sounds impressive and flattering until you know the real meaning:
So full of shit, he can’t fly.

John from CA
February 15, 2012 1:58 pm

Congrats Anthony, it sounds like a great project.

Coach Springer
February 15, 2012 1:58 pm

If the 2012 Climate Strategy Memo is a fake, then the clumsy curriculum strategy from whence it came would be fake. Since Heartland withheld other comments for further review, they are quite sure the memo is fake. Also, Heartland seems to have verification of the theft, how it occurred and what was stolen but is reviewing to see if any of the stolen stuff was altered / phonied up too.
It’s time someone here noted that Heartland hosted annual CAGW debates (at those modest but still high priced NY hotels) where the skeptical side routinely mopped the floor with the alarmists. I believe Gore, Hansen, et. al. were invited but did not accept. It’s also time someone acknowledged a high level of reliablity from Heartland projects. There’s a reason they’re being attacked with fraud and ad nauseum ad hominem. They’ve needed to discredit this source of information for a long, long time and there is no bad science with which to do it.
BTW, they aren’t subject to FOIA request are they? And yet the science is available. Making Mann and others look bad by doing what they wouldn’t. Isn’t Heartland just horrible?
The media coverage is a lesson in Lysenkoistic sycophancy. Don’t dare question prevailing authoritative narrative or you will be taken out.

February 15, 2012 1:59 pm

The BBC’s Richard Black makes a false statement about WUWT:
BBC:
“Further funding will go to climate blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts for a web-based project aiming to demonstrate problems in the US network of temperature monitoring stations – an issue whose irrelevance to the big questions of climate change was emphatically demonstrated last year by the Berkeley Earth Project, which found station quality was not a factor in modern measurements of global warming.”
ie the money was nothing of the sort, it was clearly described as a project for making public weather data more easily and accessibly available to the public
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991
maybe it is time for the lawyers, Richards predjudices seem to be at work. this is misrepresentation and potentially reputationally damaging to WUWT

Russ in Houston
February 15, 2012 2:00 pm

Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Please explain where/what the scandal is. The only scandal that I have read about so far is someone stealing documents from Heartland. Other than that I don’t see any laws being broken.

February 15, 2012 2:01 pm

Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous,…… blather, blather…..
==========================================
LOL…. you guys are a hoot…. you got any specifics?

David
February 15, 2012 2:02 pm

Koos says
…..sevearal inane comments about fox news, past denail of fossile fuel funding…then-
“Also Heartland published his fallacious report claiming that the temperature records were changed by “dropping” stations in the past… I wonder how much money, or non-monetary compensation Watts got from Heartland for that piece of propaganda?
Well Koos, stations by the thousands were dropped, and past records were and are being changed
http://www.real-science.com/smoking-gun-giss

JonasM
February 15, 2012 2:03 pm

I did notice that the PDF was missing pretty much all metadata, and was created just this past Monday, rather than much earlier, which it would have been for a January meeting.

dylan
February 15, 2012 2:03 pm

wow
a lot of words
why not just come clean Anthony and say: I take money from Heartland”

Tommy Roche
February 15, 2012 2:03 pm

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
Lots of fun, eh?
Speaking of fun William, how are things going for you at Wikipedia these days ? Had hoped that maybe you had mellowed with age and gotten over your antagonistic streak.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 2:03 pm

JonasM says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:37 pm
I prefer to wait to see some proof that the key document was faked. If it’s true that, according to their press release, “It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact” then, unless the contradictory information is of a sensitive nature, I would expec that HI will provide it.
Until that happens, or HI reveals other information that someone else created the document, we only have evidence for the document being a fake, not proof.
—————————–
Actually, wrong.
Desmog presented them as real [ acting as the prosecutor ]…the onus is on them.
Logic exists for a reason.

Rogelio
February 15, 2012 2:03 pm

This will probably backfire on them. Temperatures are just not going up!

Steve from Rockwood
February 15, 2012 2:04 pm

CodeTech says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Seriously, $44k for a programmer for a year?
———————————————————
Shawn Halayka should have become a make-up artist, They make $44,600 a year.
http://www.payscale.com/fashion-week

Rogelio
February 15, 2012 2:04 pm

Just a comment on updated stuff very hard to see unless you link to it

JonasM
February 15, 2012 2:05 pm

Clarification: The SCAN of the document was created on Monday.

John Billings
February 15, 2012 2:05 pm

If there is any fault here, and I am not sure there is, it is that Anthony should have flagged money he has received. It is hard to square the persistent flagging of warmists’ funding while keeping quiet about your own. It smacks of double standards.
REPLY: Well seeing how I haven’t even got a chance to put the website up yet (along with about page and funding notes) before I get jumped on, it’s a pretty impossible task to self flag ahead of something like this. – Anthony

February 15, 2012 2:05 pm

MarkW said @ February 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm

Until Anthony’s work, the NOAA did not know that any of their sites were contaminated.

The fact that WMO has a standard for temperature sites would seem to indicate that the potential for problems was know many long years ago. Roger Pielke Sr has at least one published paper on site contamination. Tom Karl published a paper on the issue long (10 yrs IIRC) before Anthony started WUWT. NOAA should have done what Surfacestations. org did at least a decade before. NOAA certainly knew there was an issue, but it didn’t matter. And that is quite telling in itself…

Disko Troop
February 15, 2012 2:06 pm

I love the way the warmies come rushing out from under their stones and congregate on WUWT every time they think a warmy point has been scored.
Unfortunately for them some of the documents are forged!
As this statement has come from Heartland:
“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.”
I hope there is enough room under the stones for you all to get away! It will be no fun with out you.

HankH
February 15, 2012 2:07 pm

Shawn Halayka says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:51 am
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.

Shawn, I own a software development company. From my experience, $44,000 is a grossly underfunded web product development endeavor. Let’s have a look at a few of the “real” costs you seem to overlook:
A server capable of performing scheduled data acquisition, data aggregation, support data interfaces, running a database engine and web services will typically run in the range of $6K – $10K if it has any fault tolerance and drive redundancy (RAID) built in as would be necessary for this type of project.
The OS has a cost.
Data backup has a cost.
Off site data archiving has a cost.
Domain registration and annual renewal has a cost.
Server maintenance has a cost.
Hardware doesn’t run for free – there’s electrical costs for running the server plus environmental control for the room the server is running in.
You don’t run a data or web server without a UPS system. Our average cost for a reliable single server UPS is around $1,800 which provides a reasonable 8 hours of failover.
There’s monthly facility costs.
There’s fault monitoring costs (if the server will be monitored for failures).
There’s ongoing software maintenance costs.
Then there’s all the shipping, taxes, rack, cabling, postal, and other adjunct COS expenses. These tend to add up quickly.
For you to suggest that $44,000 is a lot shows that you have no concept of development workflow, production, and operational costs even for a very small endeavor. I would estimate the cost of taking a project like Anthony has proposed from concept to market at around $100,000 to $125,000 taking all of the above into consideration. That Anthony is getting it off the ground for as little as $44,000 is impressive.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 2:07 pm

BIG OIL FUNDING seems to have seeped everywhere. What is it with BIG OIL ‘deniers’ funding climate scientists. Disgraceful! It OK for BIG OIL to fund climate bandits but it certainly is not OK for them to fund sceptics. This is what is commonly known as double standards and it stinks.

Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 21, 2002
“Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors,…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

The greater the noise the more convinced I become that Anthony Watts is right over the target.

Varek Raith
February 15, 2012 2:07 pm

Why would anyone want to associate with an organization that helped spread lies about the effects of smoking? Now they’re doing the same with AGW. They have an unethical track record.
Further, why the hell would I trust such an organization and anyone connected to it?

David
February 15, 2012 2:07 pm

R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?
============================
Private organization, vs publicly funded CRU, get it?

February 15, 2012 2:07 pm

Steven mosher said @ February 15, 2012 at 1:53 pm

hey guys check the document properties.. the forged document is missing something.

Authenticity? 😉

DirkH
February 15, 2012 2:09 pm

Richard Black from the BBC has a piece up. I think he suffers from unclear reasoning:
“Further funding will go to climate blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts for a web-based project aiming to demonstrate problems in the US network of temperature monitoring stations – an issue whose irrelevance to the big questions of climate change was emphatically demonstrated last year by the Berkeley Earth Project, which found station quality was not a factor in modern measurements of global warming.”
Richard; calling Anthony Watts’ project irrelevant is detrimental to your efforts at scandalizing the Heartland funding. THINK for a moment. You’ve just said that Anthony got funding but it doesn’t matter anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17040616

3x2
February 15, 2012 2:10 pm

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
Lots of fun, eh? “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” is nice, though I note that the attempts to spin this are already starting.
Heartland’s statement that “no more than 5% of total budget from a single corporate entity” now looks to have been very carefully crafted, now we know that 20% came from a single individual!
“At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports” is also pleasantly honest – no pretence there of actually doing any real science.

Hi William, glad you turned up on the thread because I had a question for you but didn’t know where to post my question (you being such a busy bee and all). With my day time job and family commitments
I find it hard to correct the “Carp fishing” Wikipedia (the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit) entry even though it is plainly nonsense. Ideally I would like to find the time to “correct” all the Carp threads up to 5000+ times (or until I am stopped) in order to remove the bullshit that appears there. Trouble is, you see, I just can’t give up my day time job and so don’t have the time to serially correct all those idiots. Could you help me out? Where could I find sponsorship such that I could spend all my waking life correcting entries?

RHS
February 15, 2012 2:12 pm

Matt – which court of law has the science Climate Change stood the rigors of? None to date.
As far as being a hack, it would appear you were looking in a mirror while writing rather than minding your manners…

Editor
February 15, 2012 2:12 pm

Meanwhile in the UK, the Research Councils are dishing out £234 million p.a. for “climate change research and training”.
This, of course, is on top of direct UK govt funding and EU funding.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/uk-universities-receive-72-million-p-a-for-climate-research/

Editor
February 15, 2012 2:14 pm

I write articles primarily on aspects of climate history. Not only do I do it in my own time for free but I reckon to spend some 750 dollars a year on purchasing items necessary for authenticity of my articles such as buying research papers behind a pay wall.
It irritates me that on message climate researchers get funding of many tens of thousands of dollars and yet still can produce poor papers.
If sceptics could get even 10percent of the funding of the mainstream climate scientist I suspect they would ensure the collapse of cage scare mongering within two years.
Anthony spends a lot of his own time money and effort in supporting this blog and related activities so if he can find some outside funding for a specific project, good luck to him.it’s best that it is transparent however.
Tonyb

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 2:15 pm

@KR –
Heartland claims the documents were E-mailed, not hand-delivered. The very fact that it was scanned (looking at it, the file is 20 times the size of the closest other one!) when the others were not makes it incredibly unlikely that a single person stole the whole thing.
My guess is that the “hacker” (not really hacking) knew enough to know that he might accidentally leave a digital fingerprint in a word document that would show it wasn’t made by Heartland, but not enough to know how to get rid of it, so he printed out his document and scanned it to hide this fact – (you wouldn’t EXPECT a scanned document to have its author listed as being from Heartland in the properties). He then likely didn’t do it for the other documents because of convenience and size restrictions.
Pretty lazy fake, actually.

KR
February 15, 2012 2:15 pm

The “Strategy” document is lacking the “Author” document properties (the others appear to list J. Bast as author) – but since it’s a scan of hardcopy, not a directly created PDF, that’s really not surprising. It could have been generated by a secretary.

John Billings
February 15, 2012 2:19 pm

Anthony,
It is my belief that the purpose of wattsupwiththat.com is to create and promote honesty in scientific debate. This is why it is read by so many people.
I would like to ask a couple of questions.
1. The Heartland Institute is a free market thinktank. Their goal is to promote the free market , or libertarianism, or something. Either way, it is a right-wing political organisation. Were not the alarm bells ringing when they offered you money?
2. At any time that the funding received by the warmists came up on wuwt.com since you took the money from Heartland, did it cross your mind at all that you should mention the Heartland money? Especially given the sometimes bloodthirsty comments posted at wuwt on this subject?
3. Did ir never occur to you to reject the Heartland funding and post this fact on wuwt as a banner headline?
Thanks in advance for answering,

derryman
February 15, 2012 2:20 pm

Firstly this wasn’t a hack (or even a leak) it was a blag – pretending you are someone else to get access to confidential information. Google “Leveson Inquiry” for detail on how this practice was widespread in British newspapers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/8966022/Leveson-Inquiry-NOTW-used-blagging-to-get-football-managers-medical-records.html .
Secondly the “confidential memo” looks suspect, wrong font, different formatting, no author, no date, no circulation list. It also fails the “to be good to be true test”.
To anyone with a passing interst in the “dark arts” this all looks a bit amatuerish.

February 15, 2012 2:21 pm

Wow, The warmthers are desperate to discredit you, Mr. Watts. You, of course, must defend yourself. I’d say you’ve done a good defense here today.
You should be gratified to see these salvos aimed at you and WUWT. The German scientists asking you to post their message and now this attack. One good thing , one bad. These things show the power that you are gaining.
Anthony Watts and The Many contributors on WUWT, you all ARE the front lines in the quest for truth against the great CAGW lie.
Visiting this site is a tonic for the lunacy that abounds elsewhere.

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 2:25 pm

KR – why in the world would you expect this document to not be a word document. Describe a likely scenario where the “leaker” either obtained a 2.7 meg PDF from Heartland or managed to get this piece of paper out of the building to scan it himself. Sure, it is technically possible, but if you try to imagine it happening, it gets really silly really fast.

Editor
February 15, 2012 2:25 pm

R Shearer says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:18 am
> Does Anthony have a helicopter?
> REPLY: No, nor even a plane like Mr. Gore does, – Anthony
I hear Burt Rutan has an airplane, maybe he’s evil.
Anthony admits to having an electric car, but it’s a small car.
I guess I’m not sure what your point is, then again, I’m not sure what my point is.

AndyG55
February 15, 2012 2:26 pm

Keep up the good work AW.
Funding to fix the omissions and lack of clarity and readability of the NOAA site should be coming from government sources though. Maybe its time to approach the government or one of the climate companies for extra funding , they have plenty !!!!
And doesn’t everyone want REAL DATA, not maniplated propaganda? 😉

February 15, 2012 2:26 pm

derryman. the fake document also appears to have the budget figures wrong.

February 15, 2012 2:26 pm

Mr Lynn says:
The so-called ‘environmental’ organizations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Foundation are also tax-exempt, yet propagandize and proselytize at every turn, including testifying before Congressional committees. Should they also be “classified as lobbyists”?

The IRS already examined that and is fine with Greenpeace’s status.
What is ludicrous is how the warmist press and blogs are crowing over the discovery that Anthony received a small grant from a minor think tank like Heartland for a public-service website, while vast sums flow into all manner of government and academic entities for the avowed purpose of revealing the purported dangers of man-made ‘global warming’. It is no accident that in many fields of science, to get a grant from institutions like the NSF, you have to demonstrate its relevance to ‘climate change’
Funny how Anthony never mentioned the grant for his website before this leak. Government grants are public knowledge (at least the abstract and the amount awarded). I do agree with you, however, on your last point: let there be more transparency! Heartland and the other think tanks should proudly tell the world which grants they are funding and why. Instead, their press release apologizes to their “allies in the fight…who have had…their integrity impugned.” Huh?

David
February 15, 2012 2:26 pm

DirkH says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous, and you deserve this Heartland scandal. Nothing you say can ever stand up in court, as the science of climate change already has.”
You mean like Stefan Rahmstorff, PIK scientist who slandered a German journalist and lost in court?
===================
Or an inconvient truth, found to be full of false claims in the UK.
In what court did the science of CAGW hold up?

February 15, 2012 2:26 pm

Varek Raith said @ February 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Why would anyone want to associate with an organization that helped spread lies

Good point. IPCC lied about only referencing peer reviewed scientific papers. They lied about the Himalayan glaciers melting away by 2035. You might want to read about even more of their lies in Donna Laframboise’s book: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

MrX
February 15, 2012 2:27 pm

I read the guardian article. It sounds desperate. There’s nothing there but a sense of urgency. No facts. Nothing to indicate wrongdoing. And WUWT’s explanation is there making the whole thing seem ridiculous. $88K for programmers and web design that will benefit everyone? OH NOES!!! You’ve been expose Watts!!! hahahaa Warmists are grasping at straws. This is proof that the thinner the straws get, the tighter they hold on.

February 15, 2012 2:28 pm

Git,
the fake document has been sanitized. missing document properties. The orginator would not
sanitize the document.

February 15, 2012 2:29 pm

JonasM says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I did notice that the PDF was missing pretty much all metadata, and was created just this past Monday, rather than much earlier, which it would have been for a January meeting.
#####
yup, there is no reason to scan it EXCEPT to hide that it is a fake.

February 15, 2012 2:30 pm

Heartland: “They stole our documents and posted them!”
Reporter: “SOO, they were true then?”
Heartland: “No they were totally fraudulent, made up documents!”
Reporter: “Then, they were not stolen, if they were made up?”
Heartland: “They were stolen, completely made up documents”
Reporter: “Who, then, stole them?”
Heartland: “Thieves”
Reporter: “SOO, again, they stole real documents?”
Heartland: “No, they completely made them up”
Reporter: “Nevermind”

February 15, 2012 2:31 pm

“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”
The 90K figure comes from the questionable document. That document also claims 88K for employee expenses.
Doesnt add up

February 15, 2012 2:32 pm

You will find my name on the 2012 proposed budget (wow, $125/month!!!) but that was something they requested me to do but I declined.

Magoo
February 15, 2012 2:32 pm

Anthony, keep the receipts and accounts for the job at hand and publish them on Watts Up With That at the end of the year when the job is complete. This will account for all the cash and show that you personally didn’t profit in any way – all cash was spent on research. Return any unspent money to the Heartland Institute. This will show that you did it purely in the name of science for all, both pro & anti AGW, and in no way was it for personal profit.

John F. Hultquist
February 15, 2012 2:34 pm

Consider just two comments in the long list above (now at 254):
Exp @ 11:51, writes of the “dying fossil fuel industry.”
oakgeo @ 12:19 writes “. . . Check your facts;”
Well, the Canadians have oil they will be selling to the world market.
North Dakota has oil they are selling in the USA.
Pennsylvania and adjacent states have so much natural gas the market can’t handle it all – storage and buyers are needed.
Australia has coal. Brazil and Mexico keep finding oil.
Green energy projects are collapsing in piles of ruble and bankruptcies.
Exp,
If you need links to any of the above – you are way behind the curve! And the same to your friends.
————————————————————
I visited this site the other day:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/02/will-we-do-anything-about-global.html
From a degreed “climate scientist” the first image is of four lovely blankets stacked one upon another and the implication that “greenhouse gases” act like blankets. Later, he suggest we need more dams in the Columbia River system for irrigation – because of declining snowpack. Then he expresses the idea that a good level of world population is a “steady 2 billion” people.
If this is climate science, then perhaps, it ought not to be taught at all.
————————————————————
As for today’s little kerfuffle, it too shall pass.

jono1066
February 15, 2012 2:36 pm

now if I can find your `funding` box thats hidden hereabouts there`s 44$ to your account, if 1000 of us donate that there`s the rest of the money,
and thank heavens that we are an active `opposition` party, just translate that into politics and think what it would be like if the opposition parties stopped being an opposition to the group in power.
It is critical for science (and everything else) to have an opposition, it keeps things just nice and level and stops power corrupting .

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 2:36 pm

It’s worth responding to DeSmogBlog’s claims of “several items in the fake document is correct”.
I believe that every “fact” they reference is also referenced in the other documents. I’m going to go verify that now…

W. W. Wygart
February 15, 2012 2:37 pm

Anthony
I am SO pissed at the way you have been treated in this mess that I am giving myself a preemptive, self-imposed ‘time out’. Nothing I want to say right now is publishable.
Best of luck, you will come out on top in the end.
W^3

Lars P.
February 15, 2012 2:37 pm

Varek Raith says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Why would anyone want to associate with an organization that helped spread lies about the effects of smoking? Now they’re doing the same with AGW. They have an unethical track record.
Further, why the hell would I trust such an organization and anyone connected to it?
No, Varek trust people who obviously fudge data “for a good cause”. Now everything is clear, the 15 years lack of warming, the ARGO data not showing ocean warming, the uncooperative satellite not showing sea level rise, this is all unimportant trash, we only dreamed that because Anthony was given 44kUSD for the his project. The fact that xx % stations measuring temp were badly fitted is not true. Actually they were ok, it was only the money which made us believe…
Hm, do you really think so Varek?

February 15, 2012 2:37 pm

Somebody seems to think I object to Anthony creating online tools to make publicly funded data available, or to obtaining funding for this activity from whatever source.
I don’t.
Don’t misunderstand. I am confident that most of you, including our host, badly misunderstand the science of climate.
However, I think complaining about the terrible state of public access to publicly funded scientific work is entirely legitimate. I agree with most of you completely on that score and I support any volunteer initiatives to improve the situation.

IAN RS
February 15, 2012 2:38 pm

Hundreds of notes in support and just a handful of naysayers. You have to be proud of your efforts.

3x2
February 15, 2012 2:40 pm

Phil C says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:06 am
You seem particularly concerned about your role in this, Anthony. Actually, your $88,000 is small potatoes compared to much larger concerns these documents raise. The first I can think of is the classroom project. This is scary. The Heartland memo writes that the effort is to promote curricula, and I quote here “that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.” I think science teachers should be teaching science. Do You?

Can’t speak for the US but as far as the UK is concerned you are talking nonsense. Here we have a situation where children are programmed with, in much of the curriculum, absolute crap. Surely in a democracy, not the UK of course, I, or my organisation, have every right to fund and put forward a different opinion.
Clearly, by any measure, the catastrophists have had way too much time in office. They were wrong then and are wrong now so why would I allow them to continue indoctrinating my K12 with their crap? Fighting funds are needed and the only problem I see is that the taxpayer is being currently forced to fund a side.

KR
February 15, 2012 2:40 pm

TheFlyingOrc – The strategy document (wherever it came from) states that it is to be kept confidential, only distributed to a subset of Institute Board and senior staff. Joseph Bast (president) was apparently out of town when this got leaked, and who knows – he might not have been available to pull a limited distribution document off his computer.
But again – any secretary can scan an existing document and put it into a PDF – that gets done all the time. The fact that this is a scan doesn’t have much bearing on it’s authenticity.
Again, though – all of the financials discussed in the strategy document are line items in the budget and other documents!

February 15, 2012 2:41 pm

steven mosher said @ February 15, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Git,
the fake document has been sanitized. missing document properties. The orginator would not
sanitize the document.

Hence my comment. What’s your problem?

Editor
February 15, 2012 2:41 pm

Shawn Halayka says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:51 am

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 suspect there’s going to be a lot of data wrangling involved, not as bad as what’s in the Harry ReadMe file, of course, but I think there will be a lot of debate over what sites have decent data for records. (Have you ever taken a look at the sites http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/yesterday/us.html refers to?) And of course, commercial grade hardware, whatever work it takes to deal with the ISP over denial of service attacks and nonsense that happens these days, and gee, it would be sort of nice if you set up a FTP account for me so my software could upload the ENSO meter. So far Comcast hasn’t squawked about the 100,000 references per day it’s serving because WordPress makes it hard to keep it there. Heck, I’ll give you the Python code for it, it’ll just take you a few minutes to add it to crontab.
The point is – it’s not just coding. What’s left of the $44K isn’t going to cover much “professional” programming.
Perhaps you’re lucky and can spend full time programming, but all the projects I’ve been involved in require a huge amount of communication and coordination time. $44K? I don’t think that pre-tax income would pay for a year of my daughter’s college expenses. Two more monthly payments. I think I’ll make it….

u.k.(us)
February 15, 2012 2:42 pm

John Billings says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:05 pm
If there is any fault here, and I am not sure there is, it is that Anthony should have flagged money he has received. It is hard to square the persistent flagging of warmists’ funding while keeping quiet about your own. It smacks of double standards.
-================
Except, Anthony’s project is privately funded, whereas his flagging usually relates to publicly funded misadventures.
To take Anthony to task, for using private money to further his/our understanding (of anything) is patently ridiculous.

Kasuha
February 15, 2012 2:43 pm

I wonder one thing… with exception of the donor names, was there any real secret in the published documents (authentic ones, not fakes), i.e. something the Heartland Institute would refuse to publish even when asked?

Goldie
February 15, 2012 2:45 pm

So sorry that you have to put up with this nonsense. Rest assured that those of us who are interested in getting to the bottom of climate and how it works, are fully behind you. Stick in there and don’t feed the beast too much, they are not interested in the truth only selling column inches. In other words give them the absolute minimum facts and starve them of a story.

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 2:46 pm

Nevermind, it’s unnecessary. Every single point they raise as to the document’s “authenticity” they verify by pointing out that it is confirmed in the budget document. Meaning, of course, that the person who made it had access to that information.
They present this as an argument as to its authenticity.
This is why it is important to never decide that a p