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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
631 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Billings
February 15, 2012 4:21 pm

What I am saying is that you snipped my posts for no reason. Luckily, other posters preserved them. They were nothing special, just my personal thoughts, but they were censored by your staff for no reason, and they remain removed from the record.
I am especially surprised at this removal of posts in this storm of scientific integrity.
I will not, however, allow this to undermine my general faith in wuwt as a resource.
REPLY:I didn’t snip your post, another moderator did, and probably for the same insinuation I’m upset about. I’m waiting for a sincere apology for your insinuation of “on the quiet” no further posts until you do so. – Anthony

February 15, 2012 4:22 pm

Anthony
Well, disinformation has a long record in the world of skullduggery. With very little funding and the truth a global juggernaut has been derailed. Not only should this have been suspected, it will get worse. These people play for keeps and everyone needs to be on guard and be even more careful with data and to keep to the truth 100%.

John F. Hultquist
February 15, 2012 4:23 pm

Michael Tobis 2:37
“Don’t misunderstand. I am confident that most of you, including our host, badly misunderstand the science of climate.

I thought I recognized the name:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/record-for-f-words-in-climate-blog-post/
Thanks for cleaning up your language, Michael. Can you now clear up our misunderstanding of “climate science” without ranting? Perhaps start with why the atmosphere is getting cooler, while CO2 continues upward.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png

jim
February 15, 2012 4:24 pm

There is something seriously wrong when a faked document was added to the mix. Desmoblog needs to make a clarifying statement that the faked document “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” as confirmed by Heartland, came from the email address that they claim the other documents came from and also make a statement that they never interfered / edited or added to the information received. They need to be very clear in informing the public that they have not colluded with the perpetrator of the crime.

Garry Stotel
February 15, 2012 4:26 pm

The attack was to be expected. Big money, Big lies, anything goes… I just hope they don’t hire some heavies to emphasize the message… “A one way ticket” was already suggested by the ArchWarmist Pachauri…
On the positive side, it is now evident that they are getting desperate, desperate enough to fight.
As was already said “first they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you,and then you win”.
Keep going at it, Anthony, you are one step away from Victory.

February 15, 2012 4:27 pm

Everyone needs money to live and do the things outside of eating and staying warm. Altruism is supposed to be part of human behaviour: it is not the idea that is bad, it is the amount that is involved, such that there is a human incentive to do what it takes to keep the money coming, and any explicit or implicit requirement to behave in a certain way to get the funds or keep them coming. There is nothing like this apparent.
I suppose it is time to put in the New York Times a side-by-side comparison of the warmist camp and the skeptic camp, and how much money each side has received to continue the fight or because he had a dog in the fight.
On the one side we have Gore and Suzuki and Hansen and Mann. On the other side we have Morano, Watts, Singer and Carter. We have the book sales of each and the funds each has received from them. On the Goracle side, we have millions, and this is outside Gore’s hundreds of millions. On the Morano side, we have the price of an SUV or two.
Simple chart. No need to interpret: if money is the reason to question moral behaviour, then the questions only go one way.

Peter
February 15, 2012 4:29 pm

Will Nitschke,
Heartland’s mission is to influence public opinion and public policy. Go to their website, open their “Prospectus” and read it. All they talk about is media strategy, influencing key opinion makers, calls to legislators, writing newsletters for public officials, shaping regulation, etc. etc. You’re absolutely right, they are a 501(c)(3) funded by private individuals and corporations. And they make it very clear for those donors that their money is going to buy influence in government and public policy. Heartland is a perfectly legal non-profit political lobbying organization.
You may think the IPCC has many flaws, but I hope you recognize that its mission is to deliver unbiased information and not to advance a particular agenda.

openside50
February 15, 2012 4:29 pm

WOW £6m in funding!
When do we find out who provides the hundreds of millions to greenpeace and the like?
the warmists are getting desperate – I see this as a good sign

Third Party
February 15, 2012 4:32 pm

Hansen says:
“Refusing the prizes would have been to our taxpayers’ detriment.”
All I see is that the gov’t continues to borrow money “for” me and that I derive negative benefit from Hansen’s awards.
His analysis of this point seems (not adequately explained and) deeply flawed.

pat
February 15, 2012 4:33 pm

15 Feb: Bloomberg: Simon Clark: Gore Likens Carbon to Subprime Debt in Plan to Repair Capitalism
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said investors in oil and gas companies who ignore the cost of emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are making a mistake similar to those who invested in subprime mortgages.
“The value of the subprime mortgages was based on a false assumption,” Gore said yesterday in an interview. “In almost exactly the same way, the value of all of these carbon fuel reserves is based on a similarly absurd assumption.”
Gore made the analogy as Generation Investment Management LLP, the asset manager he founded with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) executive David Blood, published a five-point plan titled “Sustainable Capitalism” to reform the investment industry. They want the proposals to help combat climate change and poverty as well as boost profit in the long term…
“The bitter experience that the subprime mortgages caused should be a reminder that stranded assets have the potential for doing a great deal of damage,” Gore said in a video link between Generation’s New York and London offices. The firm manages about $6.5 billion.
“These subprime carbon assets have an asserted value based on the assumption that it’s perfectly OK to put 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours,” he said. “Actually it’s not.”…
Gore’s comparison of carbon and subprime debt comes a month after a group of U.K. investors and environmental campaigners wrote to Bank of England Governor Mervyn King urging a probe into whether the U.K.’s holdings of investments in greenhouse gas-emitting industries poses a risk to financial stability…
Gore and Blood (OR BLOOD AND GORE TO EVERYONE ELSE) said adoption of their proposals was necessary to restore public faith in capitalism, which they said had been eroded during the financial crisis, in which taxpayer funds were used to bail out banks and insurance companies…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/gore-likens-carbon-to-subprime-debt-in-plan-to-repair-capitalism.html
15 Feb: PDF: Generation Investment Management LLP: Sustainable Capitalism
http://www.efinancialnews.com/share/media/downloads/2012/02/4070000441.pdf
——————————————————————————–

3x2
February 15, 2012 4:34 pm

Larry Ledwick (hotrod ) says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:32 pm
[…]
My instinct is that the CAGW crowd will find that they are opening a debate that they do not want opened. […]

I think you may be right. They are giving publicity to a non story that is going to force them to answer questions that they had hoped had gone away long ago. Strikes me, having ploughed through the “news items” that the “journalists”, in attempting to expose “Heartland”, are exposing their loyal readers to “the dark side” in an easily digestible format. It’s all beginning to look like a massive own goal.
“Watts found producing easily digestible climate information for less than it cost to publish this story” – yep, that’ll work.

February 15, 2012 4:37 pm

So a man who makes his money selling video graphics for weather, and has a personal blog lots of people decide they want to read, is being accused of making money by hiring staff to produce new video graphics about weather extremes from public information available to anyone?
This act has caused a ruckus among bloggers who are themselves funded by special interest?
It appears to me that the implications of what the the website will show, is clear to someone. That someone isnt happy.
Am I correct in the implications here?

John Billings
February 15, 2012 4:39 pm

Anthony,
I will apologise for the insinuation of “on the quiet” if you can point out where it occurred.
If you can specifically point out what has upset you, as a reasonable man, I will of course look at my behaviour.
I am disappointed we have come to this, I really am. I like contributing, I like being part of things, and, like everybody, I like being liked.
However, if you want me to apologise for somethng that I don’t see as a wrongdoing, then the result will be that I will no longer enter posts on your website.
You can communicate with me at alxxxxx@yahoo.com
I will be happy to apologise as soon as you point out my wrongdoing.
Kindly,
John Billings
REPLY: You can’t even remember what you’ve written? Here it is, bolded below. Again, I’ve been denied the opportunity to disclose it myself as intended, when the website was finished and went online. – Anthony
John Billings
alxxxxx@yahoo.com
[ip deleted]
Submitted on 2012/02/15 at 2:49 pm
u.k.(us) says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:42 pm J
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.
No, sorry, that’s incorrect, “To take Anthony to task, for using private money to further his/our understanding (of anything) is patently ridiculous” is wholly erroneous.
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.

David A. Evans
February 15, 2012 4:41 pm

John Billings!
Which part of wattsupwiththat is not funded by have you failed to understand?
This is a new as yet unannounced, (until the scandal arose,) project!
Some people are unteachable!
DaveE.

Frank K.
February 15, 2012 4:42 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?

But were the e-mail made up??? Nope. And we all got to see the unseemly, nasty world of climate science up close and personal.
So, when is NCAR going off the grid??? (heh)
And when is R. Gates going off the grid???

February 15, 2012 4:43 pm

Peter says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:29 pm
You may think the IPCC has many flaws, but I hope you recognize that its mission is to deliver unbiased information and not to advance a particular agenda.
Incredible. Every time I read something like this, I remind myself never to underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Duke of Oil
February 15, 2012 4:47 pm

“Did you accept money from the fossil fuel industry?”
“Well, that depends on what the defintion of ‘fuel industry’ is.”
Slick Willy rides again.
It was done by Colonel Mustard, in the Oval Office, with a cigar.
Pass the popcorn.

bair polaire
February 15, 2012 4:48 pm

Equal pay for equal work!

Kaboom
February 15, 2012 4:48 pm

I think for $44k the NOAA wouldn’t be able to conduct a feasibility study on whether they can actually do Anthony’s project, much less actually get it off the ground.

David A. Evans
February 15, 2012 4:51 pm

Peter says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:29 pm

You may think the IPCC has many flaws, but I hope you recognize that its mission is to deliver unbiased information and not to advance a particular agenda.

Would that it were so. The mission is to determine human influences on climate. No other causes, just human. So they only look for human influences, what a surprise!
DaveE.

beng
February 15, 2012 4:51 pm

As long as Heartland is receiving private money, I don’t give a rat’s arse what they’re doing w/it.
Listen up, warmers, we don’t want to have to keep repeating it. It’s TAXPAYER money that we taxpayers are concerned about, not private. If you receive money from governments for your occupation, you’re working for its citizens, not for yourselves. Get it?

February 15, 2012 4:55 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.

Actually, Varek, the case is more apt than you know. There is not now, and never has been, any evidence that for a normal, healthy human exposure to second hand smoke constituted a health hazard. Heartland (and Dr. Singer) were associated with research on second hand smoke, not smoking itself. The whole second-hand smoke panic is precisely analogous to the CAGW scare in that pseudoscientific propaganda promoted by self-interested bureaucrats and parroted by a sensationalist press led to an “everybody knows that …” phenomenon that is simply untrue. Second-hand smoke is unpleasant, smelly, and can cause momentary irritation to the eyes, and ruins the overstuffed furniture for resale. But dangerous to human health it is not, except in the case of extremely susceptible persons (e.g. childhood asthmatics) who are oversensitive to any foreign substance in the air (e.g. Fabreze).
Junk science is still alive and well, as the reaction of the numerous kiddiots who have posted in this thread demonstrates. But the pscience is losing, and perhaps when the American people wake up — as the Brits and Aussies are beginning to do — to the enormous damage “green” lunacy and lies are now doing to both the economy and the environment, they will begin to take a more serious look at the distinction between real science and junk science.
And at that point, the pitchforks and torches may appear…

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 4:58 pm

Here are just some of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) past & present funders. I see big oil, fossil fuels, nuclear, green lobbyists and the interests of the insurance industry. Why does this kind of thing not get attacked by Warmists? Why does this not raise red flags? Yet a $44,000 single payment to do science research raises blue murder. Disgraceful.
British Petroleum
Central Electricity Generating Board
Eastern Electricity
Greenpeace International
Irish Electricity Supply Board
National Power
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates
Shell
World Wildlife Fund for Nature
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

Duke of Oil
February 15, 2012 4:58 pm

[snip – policy]

richard M
February 15, 2012 4:58 pm

Anthony – they are attacking you in the only way they know how – indirectly, as I think your position and methodology are sound. It’s character assassination. Stand your principled ground. This is in no way comparable to either of the ClimateGate iterations or the continuing battle on full disclosure rer Mann and his emails.

1 13 14 15 16 17 25