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
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.

bubbagyro
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

Craig Loehle
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!

1 9 10 11 12 13 25