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 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.
> how are things going for you at Wikipedia these days
Very well thanks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley if you’re wondering; you’re behind the times I’m afraid.
I see that Heartland are now claiming the “key” document is fake. That makes things more exciting. It will be fun to see if they can hold that line.
“The documents celebrate funding from the Koch Brothers”
“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.”
The Irony is that the Koch brothers funded the Berkley Earth Project.
Richard Black = Worst journalist ever
Also why did the BBC capitalize ‘brothers’?
bubbagyro says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Cobblers. The argument is that if you criticise the payments others receive, then you should not take payments yourself. Or, if you do, you should admit to them upfront, and avoid the embarrassment witnessed here today.
Nothing to do with “crooks” or anything else.
“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?”
Excuse me if this is a repeat post. Phil, do you really think the directors of Heartland actually put together a plan to keep teachers from teaching science? The Global Warming Hoaxsters consider those who investigate and question Global Warming to be neanderthals. Their bigotry has burnt them. If the idiot had written “that are effective in dissuading teachers from teaching GLOBAL WARMING”, the document might be believeable (but then it wouldn’t be scandalous). They blew it and this document is a joke.
Which raises the question, why do the global warming hoaxsters have to resort to fake documents to smear the opposing scientists? It’s because they’ve go nothing.
I would like to present the following thoughts on the issue presented above:
In the understanding that many might believe its naivety, the funding issue is a non-story. Personally, I could care less and don’t quite understand why everyone else seems to care so much about who and where funding for projects comes from. Following is my reasoning.
Funding is not the issue, the science is the issue. Funding is only wrong in the event that the funds are tied to obtaining pre-conceived results, and if this occurs it should be easily refuted by looking at the science. In the end, who really cares where the money comes from, whether it be the Heartland Institue, Koch Brothers, BP, Shell, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc., and who it goes to (Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, CRU, etc.). What matters is whether the results of the science or project is SOUND, DEFENSIBLE, and REPEATABLE.
So in my humble opinion, and this goes for both AGW proponents and AGW opponents, instead of attacking the money, we should be focusing on the science (i.e., methodology, analysis and results, and conclusions). After all, why waste time and effort on a money trail, when the meat and bones of the argument is in the science?
Thank you for taking the time to read my two cents worth.
John Billings said @ur momisugly February 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm
If I can read it, it’s not censored. You do know what censored means I take it. Anthony’s comment is still accompanying it where I read it some time ago. Why are you making things up? Oh, that’s right, you’d be a CAGWer [self-snip]
I’ll comment in general that source of funding is a neo-Marxist scam, for two reasons:
– their fixed-pie capitalist-exploitation view of life motivates them to think that businesses have special advantage and are automatically wrong.
– they peddle the notion that it is wrong for their oponents to speak out, while they can spout irrational anti-human nonsense. They take funding from afar (as exposed by Vivian Krause from the Vancouver BC area, and others), and have many organizations with names that infer they are mainstream but are quite biased, yet claim opposing thinktanks are bad.
Yes, I evaluate environmentalist activists and their financial supporters as neo-Marxist, because of the combination of their anti-business rants and their negative views of humans.
And people do ally with the Heartland Institute on occasion. A couple of years ago Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand institute gave a good talk at their climate conference and was heavily involved with it. ARI and many Heartland members probably disagree on some things, though ARI is careful about who it associates with.
http://heartland.org/about
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_science
John Billings,
This project has not even been announced yet. Generally acknowledgement of funding comes out in the final report. You’re putting the cart before the horse. And who cares where Anthony gets funded from. Has anyone found problems with his past excellent work?
odd enough that I can remember times when Anthony has not hesitated to admit he was wrong about something….and plenty of times he’s made corrections to some post…and placed those corrections and updates in the blog header where they can’t be missed…
….that’s an honest broker
It doesn’t matter who finances the science…the science is on the internet….and will face the ultimate peer review
bubbagyro said @ur momisugly February 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm
There ya go. I thought it was called bullshitting, but then I’m a farmer 😉
John Billings says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:49 pm
“Taking money from right-wing thintanks on the quiet is a dirty business. Please don’t be so naive as to pretend that this is not so.
We need to.demonstrate that we are above the follies and financial misbehaviour of the other side. If Anthony had needed money, he could have outright asked for it (and he would have got it) instead of taking money on the quiet.”
==================
Anthony, (if I may say so) is only following up on an idea.
I’m sure the data collected (from the dirty thinktank’s funds), will be published, and will be examined by anyone willing to download the data (it’s the new peer-review).
Anthony will take his lumps, make corrections, then add to our scientific knowledge.
What’s wrong with that ?
I was wondering if it was worth my time to see what sks is saying. Numbnuts over there is always a hoot.
(You know him as dana1981.)
Dear Moderator,
Other than political preference, is there any reason why John Billings says:February 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm has been snipped?
Given that it was in no way argumentative, nor challenging, nor abusive, nor anything, I would like you to publish the text and you reasoning.
It was:
No, Russ, I don’t think that “taking money on the quiet from left-wing sources is perfectly ok”.
[snip] > Nor do I think that taking money from right wing sources is OK
Stop censoring posts.
REPLY: Mr. Billings, I’ll leave the other moderator to comment, but really, you are out of line and I reject the notion that it was “on the quiet”. By this action I was denied the opportunity to let this project proceed normally, and to post the particulars of fundings in the finished website. If you are concerned about “on the quiet” then please go to other websites and demand that scientists seeking grants announce their intentions AHEAD OF TIME instead of in the final finished paper as they normally do.
Until you do that, demanding other scientists disclose funding of projects on blogs BEFORE they are completed and still in conceptual stage, please just hold your boorish and pointless commentary and insinuations. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts
So… can we be clear here.. $300,000 “for making that happen” [presenting an alternate view] as compared to what? Putting an undisclosed number of “UN delegates” (and their NGO “hangers on”), (20,000+ all on full expenses?), onto an nice tropical island (Bali) for a couple of weeks to discuss “climate change, women and poverty in the third world”. Well to quote that greatest of all British citizens … Aiii… for real… Richard.
Hundreds of Billions bilked from taxpayers over twenty years as compared to $300,000. And you hate the fact that $300,000 wins because you are no nearer Thermageddon than you were back then. Ho Hum, guess money can’t buy everything eh?
Personally I would have gotten out at the moment you needed to re-brand the product – but hey, what do I know?
Anthony, I suspect in the long run this will be a good thing.
I know it probably does not feel like it now as you try to keep tabs on what is being said where and make sense of all the FUD being thrown around.
Their thrashing around with out checking facts is only likely to result in them stepping on some land mines of their own manufacture.
My instinct is that the CAGW crowd will find that they are opening a debate that they do not want opened. Many of their “assertions” if turned and examined against the major players in the global warming propaganda effort will show the huge contrast between their funding levels and the small sums used to find out their manipulation and abuse of the data.
The funding they are whining about is a pittance compared to the boat loads of cash thrown around to steer the media and the educational centers to present their twisted view of science.
The secondary incomes earned by Hansen et al in addition to their professional (word used reluctantly) income “should” be a scandal already but since the media is sittting in the corner playing 3 deaf dumb and blind monkeys it is largely unknown by the general public.
This uproar may change that.
Larry
Wow, a whole new crew of trolls, wish they could express themselves with clearly written vitriol.
All of us “normal” readers appreciate your hard work. Keep smiling.
Time to hit the Tip jar.
William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:18 pm
=========
Just as an FYI to any members of the Heartland Institute who try to whitewash this article. Don’t even bother. It will be reverted.
===========
William M Connally wrote: “I see that Heartland are now claiming the “key” document is fake. That makes things more exciting. It will be fun to see if they can hold that line.”
Well, considering that this fake document supposedly records Heartland directors trying to dissuade teachers from “teaching science”, I don’t think Heartland needs much effort to “hold the line” with people with common sense. But PT Barnuam said a fool is born every minute, or something like that.
And yes, this is the “key” document, as the other documents show that Heartland engaged in, please don’t faint, FUNDRAISING. And of course there is the donor list. THAT is indeed troubling as the Global Warming fascis.., I mean hoaxsters have a history of ruining people who don’t follow the party line.
The Pompous Git says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:22 pm
My comment has now reappeared, with Anthony’s answer. I’m making nothing up. I may have jumped the gun, for technical reasons, for which I apologise. Nor am I an AGWer.
So now could you or the moderator explain the snip on John Billings says: February 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm ??
Any justifiable reason for that?
REPLY: I don’t know, I haven’t seen the comment, but you’ve had plenty since and I’m growing damned tired of your insinuations. Take a time out. – Anthony
Tip of the warmist Iceberg hehe.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/01/17/vivian-krause-oil-sands-money-trail/
“I hope you will explore NOAA and how our products and services can enrich your own life.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
and NOAA Administrator
I just thought I would let Dr. Lubchenco know that I look forward to Anthony Watts displaying the NOAA data without any adjustments to allow easy side-by-side comparisons of stations, plus other graphical representations output 24/7/365. Once that feature is made available on WUWT, I know that your products and services will enrich my own life. I donated what I could to Anthony Watts, who is a “dedicated scientist us[ing] cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it.” I look forward to exploring those high and low record temps.
This is too funny!!!! So, the morons like DeSmog and the rest of the cast of idiots ran with the “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” email. It was entirely erroneous.
So, the question is, who knew it was erroneous. But, even the ones who didn’t know and ran it anyway have simply shown that they are incapable of the necessary critical thinking skills to discern fact from fiction and can’t be trusted to adequately filter the information available.
Truly the question is, are they really evil and intentionally misleading the public? Or, are they easily duped and are too stupid to know when they’re being used? It really can’t be anything but this. So, you alarmists here……. can you tell me which is it? AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHA!!!! rotflmaopmp!!!!!
Hey, why don’t I get a mention by Defameblog? I must have donated a couple of hundred dollars or so to Anthony.
Time to sin again … over to the tip jar folks!
Joyously, another poster has come to my aid in this censorship battle.
Again, my friend u.k.(us) has inadvertently preserved my censored post. So now you can all see what was censored:
u.k.(us) says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:29 pm
John Billings says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:49 pm
“Taking money from right-wing thintanks on the quiet is a dirty business. Please don’t be so naive as to pretend that this is not so.
We need to.demonstrate that we are above the follies and financial misbehaviour of the other side. If Anthony had needed money, he could have outright asked for it (and he would have got it) instead of taking money on the quiet.”
==================
Anthony, (if I may say so) is only following up on an idea.
I’m sure the data collected (from the dirty thinktank’s funds), will be published, and will be examined by anyone willing to download the data (it’s the new peer-review).
Anthony will take his lumps, make corrections, then add to our scientific knowledge.
What’s wrong with that ?
—
You censors are not very good: you need to take out the replies too.
WOW, they’re out in strength!
Their logic still seems impaired though, eg…
coeruleus says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Do people usually disclose funding before a project is actually finished, let alone started?
DaveE.