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.
So they tried to manufacture their own climategate, and it only showed how honest and humble you are.
Keep up the good work Anthony!
I trust that people who appreciate the work of Anthony and others will be making more frequent and larger contributions, seeing how much value they get for their money.
@KariL
You might just want to stop and check things a moment the document you quote is the FAKE document. So this one what you want Anthony to defend himself against? Why on earth would he have to defend himself from a FAKE document?
You need to check your gullibility I think.
KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Are you learning impaired? Half the crap you blathered came from the faked document. Further, you twit, if the Heartland gets money from the oil industry, so what? Alarmists get money from the fossil fuel industry all the time….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/idiot-nat-gas-industry-fears-monster-they-fed-may-turn-against-them/ That damn sure isn’t $44,000 or $90 or $100 thousand.
And if Heartland wanted to fund Anthony giving all of us access to data we wouldn’t otherwise have, don’t you think you owe Anthony and the Heartland some thanks instead of condemnation? Or, are you one of those who don’t believe we should have access to data?
Is the alarmist hypocrisy something inherent or do they teach classes?
Anthony:
It has been insinuated that since The Heartland received funding from fossil fuel interests, you have therefore received funding from fossil fuel interests. Ergo, you are in their pocket.
If we hold that to be true, I guess since Suzuki has received funding from Terasen Gas (formerly BC Gas), he is in the pocket of fossil fuel interests too.
Keep up the great yeoman’s work. Love your blog.
Cheers
KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm
The documents also contain evidence that shows Heartland is funded by fossil industry money (amongst others). Do you need a diagram drawn for you to understand how your claim that you do not received dirty fossil industry money is false?
Karl, in case you are unaware, most colleges provide courses in logic. I suggest you attend one soon so you avoid making these kind of silly logic errors.
Just because Heartland, which has many interests and receives money from many industries, receives money from one particular industry does not mean Watts received any of that money. You have to demonstrate Watts actually received money from that industry. You are claiming guilt by association which is meaningless.
I’m always amazed when someone displays such enormous ignorance while attacking another person. Just amazing.
Anthony: Keep up the good work. As someone else said, I’m excited that you get any funding for what I think is an important project. However, we need to beef up your fund raising skills – Michael Mann would have knocked down 500 grand for this, and he probably would have slipped the inverted Tiljander series into the works, to boot.
Know you have many who are thankful for your efforts. If your enemies consist only of this sort:
Chris Colose says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:15 am
William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
You Guys are unreal says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
Exp says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm
then life is indeed a bowlful of cherries.
Best regards,
Jim F
It seems there is an effort afoot to fight fire with fire. Kinduv. You steal our memos, we steal yours. Trouble is, Heartland and WUWT memos compare to Climate gate, like a bit of rain compares to a hurricane. This will end laughably badly…For them.
Intentions of the faked document “Protocals of the Elders of the Heartland Institute”:
1. Amplify the connection with Koch. Koch appears to be only a second tier supporter, but a large portion of the document discusses them even though there are larger and more important foundations/donors they would normally discuss is a real strategy document.
2. Make it known that Dr. Wojick is a consultant for the DoE, and thus try to jeopardize his business. Dr. Wojick is evidently the key player in the nefarious plot to keep teachers from “teaching science”. Does the Obama DoE really want to award consulting work to such an evil man?
3. Smear Anthony Watts. Uses the word “coordination”, as if Watts is receiving marching orders from Heartland (who evidently according to their budget didn’t donate a penny to WUWT).
4. Keep Revkin and Curry in line. The fake document says the HI wants to cultivate relations with them.
“dirty fossil industry” … amazing how many people label an industry that way.
Then they switch on their a/c, drive their car, use their computer, get their beer cooled .. as like they don’t know where energy comes from.
EternalOptimist:
My apologies mate.
I see as of 5 minutes ago Richard Black still has libellous comments up on his online article concerning funding for Anthony’s NOAA data project, claiming that the proposed funding was for other purposes. This is despite a number of commenters posting notice of his egregious error and seeking to correct him. His article, while now updated to show Heartlands indication that the policy document was fake, remains full of allegations that are reliant on the contents of the fake document.
Anthony, If you chose to sue this mendacious individual or the corrupt organisation that offers him succour I will happily donate to a legal fund. The BBC have had plenty of time to correct Mr. Blacks damaging errors. Commenters have offered corrections. The BBC have ignored them. Right about now I figure they owe around $88000.00 in damages.
Anthony. It doesn’t matter if you received funding or not. A hypothesis is either right (For a given value) or wrong. All the money in the world cannot prove otherwise. So far you have consistently had a better batting average than the alarmists.
Keep up the good work. You’re scaring them.
Anthony:
As an old tee shirt I used to own said “Illegitimi Non Carborundum”. This ploy, along with most of the other recent actions of the warmist establish fairly reek with the stench of desperation and that very desperation may be the best indication available that even they realize that their future holds only more humiliation and eventual irrelevance. Unfortunately the damage you have already suffered may never be fully repaired and you would probably be entirely justified in taking legal action against the worst offenders against your reputation, although I don’t know that I would recommend that path. Perhaps the best you can do is take comfort from Nietzsche and Kelly Clarkson.
So, as I understand it the warmist argument is as follows: We want you to ignore the billions of dollars of public money that has been spent to promulgate the mythology of man-made global warming, and ignore the fact that physical observations have completely failed to corroborate our “settled science”, and instead focus on relatively trivial amounts of money given to support the activities of people who disagree with us. Because, you know, all we really want to do is completely restructure the economy of the world, and they dare to question this goal, plus they get money from non-government sources so they must be tainted. Because, you know, government funding is both pure and infallible.
Peter says:
“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.”
=================================
I have no confidence in that claim because many IPCC scientists are funded by NGO’s and non-profits. Some are lead authors and in high profile positions. Why do you think funding from one group with an agenda creates biased science yet funding from another group with another agenda creates neutral science?
In a perfect world I would not like to see any interest group fund any scientist, but we are in the real world here.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/04/wwf-influence-at-the-highest-levels-of-the-ipcc/
Heartland has a budget. Heartland has a budget. Heartland has a budget!!!
OMG, therefore, the global warming theory is true and anything put out by those associated with Heartland are not being truthful.
Sorry, you have to be a gullible no-mind to believe that, especially when $6.5 million is only about 0.5% of the funding provided directly for espousing the pro-AGW side.
Sorry for the insult, but maybe some people are just gullible …
As others have said – a hearty congratulations Anthony for today’s most excellent announcements. It is quite an accomplishment – and a highly positive one at that.
They have done the one truly important thing correctly, they are spelling your and the site’s name right … and in doing so exposing the good work – and service – you perform in educating people regarding the climate.
At the same time they expose the abject hypocrisy of the AGW cabal – the orders of magnitude difference in the funding received by the skeptical side compared to the AGW proponents.
Do not apologize for being granted funding for a worthy project. Most of all do NOT let the mental midgets here attacking, while ignoring the reality of the funding and practices for the AGW proponents, get to you.
I believe this is a great day for skeptical science and for WUWT and yourself. Targeting and attacking you shows you have become a real threat. And in the process they have exposed their own failings.
If the climate skeptics can do the science that allows them to become this much of a threat to the AGW cabal, on this minuscule level of funding, it is one more nail in the coffin of AGW.
The US government alone has funded more than $1.3 billion to the AGW research – yet it is the good folks like you, large;y self-funded, and supplemented by small amounts from groups like Heartland and their $6 Million dollar budgets that are gaining acceptance with the public.
Its no wonder they are targeting and attacking. And doing it very badly, and laughably I might add.
Here’s to the Keystone Cops of the AGW brigade – aiming for skeptics and blowing off their own extremities instead … yeah they got you good, but its only a flesh wound – no real damage – while they expose themselves to ridicule in the process.
You know, I don’t care who funds good science as long as the results are transparent and able to be replicated and tested. I wouldn’t even mind the stuff that is done by the various academics as long as all the data and methods were available to test and confirm or deny. Some of the best geology has been done in an attempt to get at some resource buried deep in the ground – a pure profit motive for sure. The drug and chemical testing is a mixed bag though, some really good stuff has been done, and some real hokum. It all depends on how things are pursued on a scientific basis. If people followed the protocols, the hokum would have never survived, but people worked on reputation and let it through. The result was a couple of spectacular corporate failures created from real people getting hurt. I see climate science as being in this area, but unfortunately the ones who will be injured may never know what it was that caused their short brutal lives where their grandparents had lived in luxury. This is the crime of bad science, someone always gets hurt.
As for the sentence on the science instruction, what passes for science in most US schools today is pure propaganda of the chicken-little sky is boiling variety. Many teachers have become social activists who teach their charges WHAT to think rather than HOW TO REASON. Our students would be better off getting NO science instruction than what they are getting at many schools now, but even better would be to inject the scientific method into EVERY SCIENCE LECTURE or LAB. Unfortunately we would have to first teach the activists (whoops meant teachers – or did I?) that quaint idea first.
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm
So Tallbloke is guilty until proven innocent, R.? Simply because he was subject to an investigation?
That’s the level of intelligence you apply to the Global Warming movement–Humans are guilty of causing it by their CO2 emissions–just ignore the correlation/causation problem!
Problem is, you’re wrong, R.
Get it?
Karl, when you advise us that you’ve pulled the mains breaker on your house and cut off all electricity permanently, pulled the modern plumbing out of the walls, thrown out every item in your home that contains petroleum derivatives including the computer you typed your nonsense on, gave away your automobile, thrown away most of your clothing, stop heating your home, and demanded that your local hospital, police department, and airport do the same then I’ll find you credible enough to lecture us about dirty fossil industry.
Until then, your feigned indignation is nothing short of pure hypocrisy.
Dave Wendt says:
February 15, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Anthony:
…………”.Unfortunately the damage you have already suffered may never be fully repaired and you would probably be entirely justified in taking legal action against the worst offenders against your reputation,”……….
=============================
With all due respect, it killed them, not Anthony.
They may never recover from this blunder, will the troops follow their leaders anymore, when the objective is a lie.
William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 3:18 pm
I’ve been trying to stay out of this thread, I’ve only edited a couple pages at Wikipedia myself. However, I can’t resist this one. I noticed one of your “special contributions” regards the Heartland Institute and several reverted edits. Looks like I’ll stick to WUWT and ignore Wikipedia for my climate information for a while longer. I didn’t bother to check them out, but please keep up the great work.
To others – “Special:Contributions” does not list “special contributions” It seems to list all the contributions, reversions, and deletions.
The old “ignore you, mock you, attack you” meme is in the final third. Be careful Mr. Watts. I am seriously concerned for your safety. They are getting desperate. If this is the best they can do then pathetic is an understatement but be careful. You’ve done a wonderful service to science in general and climatology in particular. My hopes are with you but remember Galileo . Cheers.
For whatever it may be worth, I emailed the following to the author of the story in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/15/heartland_docs_leaked/
If anyone else also wishes to email that author after reading his story, just click on his name on the story page, and it takes you to an online email form (no registration or anything required)
Dear Mr. Chirgwin,
I love the Register, but have to say I was sorely disappointed today. I just finished reading your article: Heartland Institute documents leaked. As a result, I must say “for shame Mr. Chirgwin!!” I very much hope that you have the integrity to update your article once you check and verify some of what I mention and include below.
To begin, I ask if you bothered to check and see if the supposed “Heartland” documents are legitimate, or at the very least, state clearly in your article that the authenticity is unknown at the time you went to press? No. It now appears that the planning/strategy document, which you quoted from, is a fake.
Did you contact Anthony Watts to verify that portion of your story? No, you didn’t. Nor did you accurately report what the funding is for, what the actual source of the funding is (hint, not Heartland), or even the amount of funding. First and easiest, Mr. Watts has not received $90K. He has gotten a funding commitment of $44K from a donor Heartland put him in contact with – this is materially different both in terms of the source and the amount. Finally, the funding has nothing to do with ‘relaunching’ his website (either of them – Wattsupwiththat or Surfacestation.org). The funding is for Mr. Watts to develop a website that makes difficult to find raw data from the USA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) more user friendly – e.g., easy to find, and able to seen in a graphic format rather than simply raw data tables. This is something NOAA ought to be doing themselves already – Mr. Watts will do it using private funding, far cheaper than it would cost the US taxpayer if NOAA had it done, and the page will be free for public use.
Please, Mr. Chirgwin, correct your article – restore the integrity of The Register.
Kind regards,
p.s., I hope the following will help get you started in your article update research, from: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/some-notes-on-the-heartland-leak