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 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

631 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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,

1 8 9 10 11 12 25