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
February 15, 2012 8:17 pm

I don’t get it. Is “Heartland” a secret code word for “eeeeevil oil company”??? If EVERYTHING alleged were true, what would be the problem?
Larger picture, who gets to decide what is “clean” funding for climate research and what is “dirty” funding?

John F. Hultquist
February 15, 2012 8:18 pm

Oh. Oh! I just searched the list of companies in the S & P 500. Using “energy” as the search term I got 72 hits. There are some well known fossil fuel companies therein. Some of them pay dividends. To me. Yikes! How embarrassing.

MarkG
February 15, 2012 8:21 pm

“With all due respect, it killed them, not Anthony.”
Indeed. This must be the least scandalous ‘scandal’ I’ve ever seen… clearly global climate warming disruption is on its last legs if this is the best they can do.
And if the document they’ve been spreading across the web is fake, I’d guess there will be a few brown trousers in the climate alarmist camp tonight.

Crispin in Waterloo
February 15, 2012 8:21 pm

M. Connolley
We have never met but from your posts here and your works at Wikipedia it seems you are a pretty credulous fellow. Perhaps you should be slightly more skeptical of screaming headlines and just about anything published in The Guardian about the climate.
If you have not noticed yet, the jig is up. CO2-caused CAGW is bunk. The money is all going to go away.

Owen in Ga
February 15, 2012 8:26 pm

Hulquist: If we are doing confessions, many of my mutual funds are invested in coal, oil and gas as well, so I guess I too am being “paid off” by evil carbon. Come to think of it, there are VERY FEW mutual funds that don’t have a traditional energy component. They tend to turn a consistent profit, which is what I invest for!

February 15, 2012 8:30 pm

Lots of people are reading this thread, many of whom will be here for the first time, not knowing who to trust. I submit for their consideration this observation: look at the freedom with which Anthony’s opponents get their material posted on this web site, some of it, IMHO, crossing the line into defamation. Now go to any alarmist blog you please and try to get a similar attack posted about the owner of that blog. Fact: this is where the free speech is, that should tell you something.

February 15, 2012 8:34 pm

At 1:27 PM on 15 February, peeke squirms and whines:

The argumentum ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy when used in an argument. I.e. something is not right or wrong because of who stated it. Checking the credentials of a certain person at the door however is more than useful.

Oh, goodie. The exchange of point and counterpoint in comments within this forum is – somehow – not supposed to be “argument.” Got any support for that contention, bubbie? Something from the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny or some other source you’re yanking out of Fantasyland?
The perpetration of argumentum ad hominem is observed whenever and wherever anyone evades address of the substance of a statement by condemning the source (in this instance a newspaper clearly stipulating the sources they’d drawn upon).
Beyond that your noise about “Checking the credentials of a certain person at the door” is particularly damnable.
Y’see, kiddo, that’s precisely what happened when the obstetrical establishment in 19th Century Vienna dismissed the observations and warnings of Semmelweis for no better reason than that his “credentials…at the door” kept him from being considered “a reliable scientific source.”
This despite the fact that he’d provided empirical proof of his contentions by implementing methods of simple cleanliness that reduced rates of mortality attributable to puerperal fever from 12.24% to 2.38% in the clinic under his management.
Try to peddle your “Checking the credentials…at the door” business on somebody other than a physician, fella. We get taught about the Semmelweis reflex – and all those young women dying of puerperal sepsis – in our first-year History of Medicine courses.
It’s an identified subset of confirmation bias.
Keep right on shoveling, peeke. Just make damned sure that your manure doesn’t wind up on other people’s shoes.

February 15, 2012 8:35 pm

Chris Colose says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:36 am
“anti-climate propaganda”
Does anybody know what this means? Is this a rational, literate person talking? We can infer what this means only because we happen know Colose is an ardent alarmist.
“even in to the K-12 classroom”
Amazing, I happen to agree with Colose on this. The Heartland should not be developing climate change programming for grade and high school students. By the same token, no climate science programming of any form should be directed at grade school or high school students since the science is too premature and the objective is indoctrination, not learning. Leave the children out of this battle! Teach them the science basics in order that they have some ability to weigh scientific arguments when they are adults.
Reading the warmist visitor posts hoping to score some points has been very amusing. These guys are dreaming in technicolor if they think Heartlandgate is even remotely comparable to Climategates 1 & 2. And remember team fans, FOIA’s encrypted file still hangs like the sword of Damocles over their beloved and admired team.

Jay Curtis
February 15, 2012 8:40 pm

Much ado about nothing. This non-news story is designed to discredit climate skepticism. Its a great measure of how desperate the proponents of AGW have become. It won’t detract from the fact that the the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming is crumbling before our very eyes.

Justthinkin
February 15, 2012 8:40 pm

Framl says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Next time, consider asking your readers first for funding and perhaps assistance with programming. If you think your reader’s generosity is smaller than the financial needs of your ambitions, perhaps ask Heartland fund any shortfall.
Framl…I agree 100%,as soon as the cAGW crowd starts asking their supporters to fund them, WITHOUT taxpayer bucks!
Anthony…keep up the great work. Remember what W.Churchill said….You have enemies? GOOD. That means you have done something right.

PaulsNZ
February 15, 2012 8:46 pm

Compared to the CRU FOIA political fiasco this is open book on a library shelf.

juanslayton
February 15, 2012 8:46 pm

John Hultquist:
There are some well known fossil fuel companies therein. Some of them pay dividends. To me.
You too? California teachers retirement system has $1.2 billion worth of Exxon-Mobile stock which helps pay my retirement:
http://www.calstrs.com/Investments/portfolio/usStock.asp#E
EXXON MOBIL CORP 15,195,323 1,236,595
Funny though, I’m not embarrassed. Just keep sending me the check. (But for those who may not know it, the CA retirement system is rigged so that if the STRS portfolio can’t cover the system liabilities, the California taxpayer has to make up the deficiency. You want to hope that Exxon makes a profit.)

February 15, 2012 8:48 pm

Load of smoke, ignore it.
Every operation needs cash to run, yet you, and you alone, are allowed ONLY be able to operate out of love, altruism and pure motives?

Martin
February 15, 2012 8:50 pm

From the Heartland website…
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.
“the fight to bring sound science to the global warming debate”
Who at Heartland is the arbiter of what passes as “sound science”??

u.k.(us)
February 15, 2012 8:51 pm

Can’t resist one more thought:
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Napoleon Bonaparte

Jabba the Cat
February 15, 2012 8:52 pm

Keep up the good work Anthony, and remember, the truth will out…

February 15, 2012 9:08 pm

Watts paid to do work that NOAA should have done but doesn’t as a useless Federal pretend bucreacracy.

John F. Hultquist
February 15, 2012 9:10 pm

juanslayton says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:46 pm
“the CA retirement system is rigged so that if the STRS portfolio can’t cover the system liabilities, the California taxpayer has to make up the deficiency”

Remind me, again, why I once thought of moving to CA? [Actually, WA State has looming problems – too many of us old folks and it is a growing cohort.]
Owen in Ga says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:26 pm
“VERY FEW mutual funds that don’t have a traditional energy component.”

Do you mean like the Vanguard Energy Fund? Yeah, we do that too.

Martin
February 15, 2012 9:15 pm

This is very interesting. I suggest the folks here read the document mentioned.
Heartland alleges that one of the documents (the Climate Strategy) is a fake.
The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material they have in hand. It addresses five elements:
The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland’s own budget.
The “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.
The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.
All this is in the alleged faked document. It seems that Heartland needs to come clean and admit that the alleged faked doco is actually not faked at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/15/the-real-climategate-desmog-blog-outs-heartland-propaganda-machine/

Steptoe Fan
February 15, 2012 9:15 pm

Anthony: like Richards, above, this should clear everything up to the satisfaction of all.
I have a very small interest ( 0.000125 ) in overriding royalties, in the Elk basin Unit, Montana and Wyoming.. I have therefore donated no money whatsoever to WUWT for fear of the consequences if the news of Big Oil secondary contributions were ever leaked (or stolen). Ditto for Climate Audit, Bishop Hill, and the rest. Nothing. Nada. Not a cent.
There. Is everybody happy now ?
Continue your good work with a clear conscience, Anthony . Don’t waist your time on the idiots !

February 15, 2012 9:19 pm

Martin says:
February 15, 2012 at 8:50 pm
. . . Who at Heartland is the arbiter of what passes as “sound science”??

Who cares? The folks at Heartland, or at any other private organization, can decide for themselves “what passes as ‘sound science'” or sound anything-at-all, for that matter. They can give grants to whomever they want. Why is it of any concern to you? You don’t have to agree with them, and you don’t have to agree with the grantees.
It’s different when my taxpayer dollars go to pay for the wild-eyed speculation and radical machinations of a James Hansen. Who the hell decides that he is doing ‘sound science’? As far as I can tell he is a crackpot of the first order.
So if a tiny organization like Heartland can pay for a conference or a website or a pamphlet that will help shed a glimmer of light on the dark corners of the massive, decaying edifice of ideologically-driven State Science, more power to them.
/Mr Lynn

Owen in Ga
February 15, 2012 9:22 pm

: They can’t do any worse at the concept of science than the CAGW team, and like most think-tank type operations, they go find someone with enough knowledge to judge the order of magnitude of the problem and pay them to dig into it further. That is the nature of honest advocacy (note I haven’t looked at enough of their work to see whether they significantly slant the story on scientific issues – can’t really judge on the CAGW issue because the advocates of CAGW have so skewed the arguments that a reasonably skeptical attitude looks extreme by its distance from the orthodoxy of CLIMSCI.)

R. Gates
February 15, 2012 9:26 pm

RockyRoad says:
February 15, 2012 at 7:56 pm
R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Theft is theft…get it?
The UK police would not have raided Tallbloke, if there had there been no crime they were investigating, get it?
So Tallbloke is guilty until proven innocent, R.? Simply because he was subject to an investigation?
—–
Shake off your mind and read what was written. No where did I say he was guilty of anything. My point was that they considered the theft of the Climategate files to be a crime. You really should read what is written rather than what you expect to be reading.

February 15, 2012 9:30 pm

What a storm in a teacup. Really this is pettifoggery by those who have been funded for years by grants from oil, coal, gas, and nuclear industries. Worse still they have taken funds from the US Taxpayer which could otherwise have been spent on vital National infrastructure, like railways, roads and bridges, schools and hospitals, and yes Genuine Empirical Research.
Can it be “green” to take moneys from the US Taxpayer for instance, and spend them on hokum “research”, and bogus “energy schemes” , when this actually adds to the costs of business, and consequently causes vast reductions in the numbers of persons employed. This is the “green jobs paradox”, so ably described (appropriately enough) by Professor Gabriel Calzada, at the “Heartland Conferences on Climate Change 2009”, in his lecture entitled, “Boom and Bust of the Spanish Renewable Miracle”.
An embedded version of this 20 minute lecture can be seen here:
http://fraudulentclimate.atspace.com/videopage7.html#calzada09
See some other selected Heartland Videos on that page.
The SOUND LEVEL on those Conference Videos is VERY LOW,
so you will need to turn up your volume control when playing.
REMEMBER TO TURN IT DOWN AGAIN AFTERWARDS

kbray in california
February 15, 2012 9:33 pm

I hope I read about this on Drudge…
Matthew… are you there?
Anthony, I agree with Jack Mackenzie (says:)
February 15, 2012 at 10:53 am
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ”
Mahatma Gandhi name meaning “Great Soul”… as are you.
Stay the course.

1 18 19 20 21 22 25