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.
Well, my attempt at 1:29 am, to have a “does not equal” symbol, clearly didn’t work. My apologies.
Was meant to have a “not equal” symbol, so it said “theft does not equal leaked, whistleblower, or found on public ftp server.
[ Fixed. Use and ampersand, then a pound sign, then x2260; including the semi-colon. That is the ampersand escapes, the pound sign and the x say to use a hex representation of the unicode, and 2260 is the hex unicode for the NE symbol and the ampersand ends the escape.
-ModE (the compulsive fixing one 😉 ]
re severely faulty logic in post: JC Leblond says: February 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm, and used in other posts too…
Do you, and others who have posted along these lines, not see that this logic/rationale would only make sense if the people who released the documents never had access to the funding and budget documents or information??? Clearly, however, they had those documents in hand. Which means they could easily fabricate something using those very numbers to try to make it look more real. I’m not saying that the document is or isn’t fake – I’m just saying that trying to ‘prove’ one document out of 8 is supposedly real by saying the document wouldn’t have figures or information from other documents, when all of those very documents were clearly also obtained/stolen at the same time is just nuts.
> If you find it “exciting” to update an article…
I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about. One of these? Perhaps this? That restored valid, useful, and unquestionably true info, that someone was trying to censor for political reasons.
> to post the funding sources on the final product like is done with scientific papers
Some odd stuff there. Grants would normally be known up-front, not post-publication.
> CO2… natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”
And they want to teach children that? Oh dear.
Anthony, I want you to know that you have my support.
I noticed that the poor little trollies are claiming that somehow the Heartland Institute is unethical and they refer to the second-hand smoke controversy. So I did a very quick search….. well, it turns out that the article I found is about the junk science involved in the decision-making which is fair enough.
Note: I actually do think that there are valid concerns about second-hand smoke but that is not the point…..
Now I understand why we’ve been ‘given’ consensus science, CAGW and the rest, and why warmists are clinging on to these memes for dear life.
The poor dears are simply too thick to use their own little grey cells.
What is so hard to understand that the $44,000 are for a project which is in work, and not yet published?
How many times do they need to have Anthony say this? Does he have to post this every ten minutes until they finally, after hours and days, actually get it?
Strewth – until now, I had still assumed there was enough intelligence spread around. Seems all they are capable of is repeating what they’ve been told by ‘teacher’, with no input from their own neurones.
Pitiful.
An avalanche of great supportive comments.
A shed load of vistors , some of whom will become regular readers.
The exposure of absolutely no wrong doing on Anthony’s part.
The exposure of the idiotic hyperbole of the warmista attack dogs showing the levels of desperation they have descended to. Forgery! Really guys it’s pathetic.
The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
That was great, now let’s get back to the science chaps.
I may be repeating someone else here (the comments are over 550 already), so forgive me in that case.
Let’s cut to the chase here. You need some funding for an on-line temperature plotting system? Where’s your PayPal button? WUWT needs new servers or bandwidth? No problem, I’m ready to click away. Wikipedia did it, so why can’t WUWT? In the name of full transparency you can publish your budget right here; I’m betting you’ll find enough readers who are willing to chip in the necessary funds.
Goldenberg has ammended the article to note that at least one of the documents is likely fake, immediately after a quote from the fake document.
Having been informed, and acknowledging the fact, and despite this to continue to publish the lies; surely this must be actionable.
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study
Donors
…
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
…
http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/
MSNBC is still essentially reporting “fake but accurate.”
Bill, your career (in a sane world anyway) is Dedman walking.
O.T.- sort of..
Maybe another little silver lining to this? With all of the Free (at Anthony’s expense) publicity of WUWT, maybe this could help boost his standing in the Weblog Awards…
Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?
Anthony, Fight the good fight!!
@ur momisugly Mike Hodges, 7:17pm:
Mike, you’re a genius! I’ll have my one-quarter of a small gas station write a company cheque for $5.00 to Dr. David Suzuki and his Foundation. That’ll settle HIS science!
What’s more, the cheque will probably bounce. Oh frabjous day!
I just want to add my voice to the many who believe in your integrity, Anthony. Between you and your volunteers you’ve again proved the power of one. Truth will out. Everytime.
So be not afraid of the slings and arrows that fly past you. They come from either ignorant or prejudiced people. Neither are worth worrying about.
As the words of a wonderful old Christian hymn says, “Praise God and on Him cast your cares”. Sleep tight, Anthony.
Last gasp of a desperate and dying AGW fraud.
To be expected really, fair means or foul, makes no difference to these shysters.
This i feel wont be the last pathetic attempt by a discredited “movement” (i always think of bowels when i hear that word:) ) which is pretty apt in this case because thats where theyve dragged this sorry excuse for an “expose” from.
At least the Climategate files are real, the agw crowd couldnt get the goods so theyve fabbed them up, theyre pathetic but better than that theyre screwed and they know it. 😉
Chin up Mr W, theyre running scared, theyre on their last legs and they know the gigs up, as ever the truth will ALWAYS win, and it will always come out, no matter what they say do or think about.
[SNIP: This is both juvenile and a violation of site policy. -REP]
The timing is interesting. So close to the revelations about Media Matters ties to the White House.
Hmmmm……
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/climate_change
http://in.news.yahoo.com/video/opinion-15749653/is-the-white-house-coordinating-with-media-matters-28282054.html
Chris-
I was thinking the same thing. I see an enemies list coming out much like 40 years ago
I hope the news papers blow it out to show the public how much each side gets. Gore alone spends $100,000,000 per year.
[SNIP: Fine, you don’t like WUWT. -REP]
Illigitimi non carborundum, Anthony…
You are winning…
Mike the plumber
Anthony – I’ve read the Black Stabber’s article a few times now and from what I can see his only complaint with you is that you live and breath. Beyond that he has nothing to offer the debate, and everything about the post is what I expect from British news reporting at the best of times, and the Beeb at all times.
If you could work on that livey breathy problem this whole thing will blow over – there’s nothing the Brits can do about the quality of reporting.
Given that it’s so clear and obvious that AGW is a failed theory, why is it that those that have knowledge of this science have the need of secretive funding sources and “backdoor methods” to get it out there?
Why is it this science, that is so obvious that even the science amateurs that frequent Anthony’s blog are adamant they can disprove AGW, can’t make a dent in the scientific process?
You’d have to believe in a massive conspiracy to believe their efforts are being thwarted by an established science Bloch.
Is that what you believe, Anthony? If not, why do you allow your blog to be used as a platform from which to allow your commenters and posters to make such claims? And if your claim is that you are allowing free speech, why do you disallow comments and posts of a similar nature but from “the other side”?
****
William M. Connolley says:
February 16, 2012 at 1:51 am
****
Mr. Connolley, a polite request:
Please stop polluting Anthony’s website w/your vile, disgusting propaganda links. TIA and have a nice day.
the more publicity for this the better because it only exposes desperate measures are being resorted to to discredit anyone who questions the edifice of AGW despite the millions/ billions poured into supporting it. Keep up he good work anthony I hope this gets your work more widely recognised in manstream media
It is appearing in the dutch news at this moment. I feel sick, i am worried and mad as hell! Anthony i read your site every day with much pleasure and will do so in the future! This way i can teach and school my family, friends and Coworkers.
Dont let the msm get to ya! Its all à smear campaign to discredit you!
For what it is worth.. I will defend u, even if it is the last thing i do!
Peace!