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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

631 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DCA
February 15, 2012 11:03 am

OT but sks have started their attack on Dr. Fahrenholt.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 11:04 am

For the media who read here due to the above.
Off the subject but rather on your actions.
After all this is just some more “swiftboating” and we all know John F. Kerry’s awards and citations are real, that he had good intentions when as a Lt. in the U.S. Navey Reserve and meeting with the North Viet Amry and Viet Cong in Paris France.
So, go away and work your protection racket for Pres. Obama. There are to many facts herein for your type of wrok.
Its just U.S..

Severian
February 15, 2012 11:04 am

I’m sorry to say Anthony that you will now be ranked right up there with Goldstein as a target of the Two Minute Hate. That’s how these neo-INGSOC types roll sadly. Be consoled by the fact that you have helped to spread truth far and wide. David vs. Goliath indeed. You do a lot with your slingshot.

TGSG
February 15, 2012 11:06 am

They really did open up the wrong can of worms didn’t they? WTG Desmugblog!

Phil C
February 15, 2012 11:06 am

You seem particularly concerned about your role in this, Anthony. Actually, your $88,000 is small potatoes compared to much larger concerns these documents raise. The first I can think of is the classroom project. This is scary. The Heartland memo writes that the effort is to promote curricula, and I quote here “that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.” I think science teachers should be teaching science. Do You?

February 15, 2012 11:06 am

When warmistas encounter opposition, they are so absolutely sure they are right that they can’t imagine any rational person not falling in line. Communists were like that too. So they fall back on one of a) big oil (but look how paltry the Heartland $ is, and they do other things than climate with it), b) deniers are retarded or c) its a communication (read propaganda) problem. Never ever admit you are wrong–what’s that in Latin? Great motto eh?

rw
February 15, 2012 11:07 am

The silver lining here is that these people are sealing themselves up more and more completely within their own reality warp. It won’t be pretty when it all comes crashing down, but that’s their problem.

Tucci78
February 15, 2012 11:07 am

At 10:36 AM on 15 February, Chris Colose writes:

However, the documents unequivocally demonstrate the motives internal to the Heartland organization to spread anti-climate propaganda, even in to the K-12 classroom….

Er, just what the devil is construed to constitute “anti-climate propaganda,” putzie? We’re talking about some kind of publicity to generate public antipathy toward the climate itself, maybe?
Or perhaps persuasive material aimed at informing people about the blatant fraud that’s been foisted on us by Algore and “Mike’s Hockey Team” and all the rest of the utterly corrupt participants in the great man-made climate change scam?
===

“Corruption is not the same as conspiracy, you understand. Conspiracy is the act of conniving immorally or illegally with others to get your bread buttered. Corruption is simply knowing which side your bread is already buttered on.”
— L. Neil Smith

Robbie
February 15, 2012 11:08 am

Yippie!
It looks like both sides are exposed now.
Finally both sides can come together and behave like grown-ups from now on. I really began to hate the childish yes-no arguments all the time.
To the alarmists: Where is the catastrophic warming?
To the skeptics: Where is the huge cooling? This La Niña looks to become another pathetic weak one. Just like the last one of 2010/2011.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png
Conclusion: The human signal is already there to be seen in the satellite temperature record.
Roy Spencer and the majority of skeptics (even Lord Monckton) recognizes some warming by a doubling of CO2. So do I. We’ve already gone up 110 ppm.

Village Idiot
February 15, 2012 11:09 am

Just to prove that the Master’s motives are as white as the driven snow and above reproach, I think he should make all emails between him and St. Charles of Heartland available for public scrutiny

Peter
February 15, 2012 11:09 am

I found the description of Heartland’s campaign to spread doubt on global warming to be similar to the industry-funded campaigns against restrictions on second hand smoking, CFC regulation, etc. as described in Natalie Orestes’ book Merchants of Doubt. It certainly sounds like Heartland is working off of the same playbook.

John Brisbin
February 15, 2012 11:10 am

I am shocked, SHOCKED!, to learn that people not sucking on the government …spigot… also need money to do science.
Ever since I got my first welfare check, I have been able to maintain my purity and the proper level of contempt for those nasty capitalists.

Paul Butler
February 15, 2012 11:10 am

Re the so-called “David-Goliath” funding comparison:
(a) Heartland is not the only organisation funding selective skepticism aimed at the unwelcome conclusions of the AGW hypothesis.
(b) Action to combat the predicted consequences of AGW is not the only target of funding by Greenpeace and the other NGOs
So to compare the total budget of Heartland with the total budget of various NGOs is just meaningless

peeke
February 15, 2012 11:11 am

So now we have a clear picture: There is the Heartland Institute that has an agenda. We have the AGW crew on the other has that has an agenda as well. Gee, I didn’t need an article for that.
Andrew, when you link to Daily Mail articles as you recently did about solar cycle 25 you set a standard: The Daily Mail is not a reliable scientific source, and this wasn’t worth the link if you are curious about earths climate rather than wanting to prove your point. (AGW proponents, please not: This all applies to you lot too)
That is why I hardly want to read about the climate until we are a number of years beyond now: Then you may see if the current flat line actually means something or not. Mind you, I moved from believing this to skeptic because the AGW crew basically state that the flat doesn’t exist, even if I see it. That makes me highly suspicious. Predictions about global cooling because of a solar decline comparable to the Dalton minimum is equally idiotic. The Dalton minimum itself hardly saw global temperatures falling.
Watch the graph for a number of years. That is the only serious scientific thing to do.

Tucci78
Reply to  peeke
February 15, 2012 11:53 am

At 11:11 AM on 15 February, peeke gripes:

…when you link to Daily Mail articles as you recently did about solar cycle 25 you set a standard….

Hm. In the cited article, The Daily Mail reported that:

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

What, a newspaper isn’t supposed to report on information made public by the precisely the sorts of reputable climate experts extolled by the CAGW catastrophists? When nuggets like this:

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

…are brought to their attention, the journalists of The Daily Mail are supposed to “spike” it to prevent their readers from learning about it?
Yep, Mr. Watts did “set a standard” with his blog’s mention of The Daily Mail having reported the findings of scientists in that article, just as The Daily Mail met the standards of professional journalism by ensuring that the facts as reported were verified, meeting their responsibilities as a news organ.
peeke, have you got anything factual with which to prove that what was reported in that Daily Mail article was in error, or are you just condemning this particular newspaper as “not a reliable scientific source“?
Because, bubbeleh, that’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (evading address of the substance by attacking the source instead).
Meaning that you’ve lost the argument.

Brian R Adams
February 15, 2012 11:13 am

Anthony,
Time you put up a prominent “Donate to WUWT!” button so we can all vote with our mountains of ill-gotten cash (evil deniers that we are.)

William M. Connolley
February 15, 2012 11:14 am

Lots of fun, eh? “effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science” is nice, though I note that the attempts to spin this are already starting.
Heartland’s statement that “no more than 5% of total budget from a single corporate entity” now looks to have been very carefully crafted, now we know that 20% came from a single individual!
“At present we sponsor the NIPCC to undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports” is also pleasantly honest – no pretence there of actually doing any real science.

Chris Colose
February 15, 2012 11:15 am

Craig-
Whatever a “warmist” is, they probably are right, because they have that stuff called ‘physics’ and ‘data’ to back them up. The problem is you have to get educated in the physics, and you need to learn the data, its limitations, and how it applies/does not apply to the problem of interest. Despite what everyone thinks, you can’t read a blog to get all that. And absolutely no one here understands when they are being duped, like in the last post on sea level rise, or can spot errors (like in your paleoclimate reconstruction). It’s mostly a lot of gullible, angry people who hate the idea CO2 influences climate.

Phil Clarke
February 15, 2012 11:17 am

An anonymous multmillionaire is funding the suppression of science teaching in your country. How is this not headline news?
[Reply: a well known billionaire is funding the pseudo science blog sceptical science. That billionaire is a multiple convicted felon who worked willingly for the Nazis in WWII. How is that not headline news? -mod]

DavidG
February 15, 2012 11:17 am

Haven’t heard a word today about the huge amount of tax dollars spent on warming propaganda.
In the end this kerfuffle won’t matter much, what will trump this is the cooling that comes from a Maunder Minimum and continued defections by former warmers! Keep up the good work.

R Shearer
February 15, 2012 11:18 am

Does Anthony have a helicopter?
REPLY: No, nor even a plane like Mr. Gore does, – Anthony

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 11:20 am

ThePowerofX says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:07 am
Anthony,
………………Are you comfortable receiving support from an institute with an unethical history?
See my comment about CRU being funded from the early 1970s up to at least 2008 by BP and Shell. Not to mention parts of the nuclear industry. Is that enough ethics for you?

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 11:20 am

Keep in mind.
If you/we were not dead center on target they would not say a word if an astroid hit U.S. all on the top of our heads.
You will feel the hate. They have the thug street gang way, watch your back.

LamontT
February 15, 2012 11:21 am

Actually you would think that the warmistas would want to bury this information. As you point out it doesn’t make them look good. They spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and their message is failing. Others spend very little and defeat them. It does not at all make those supporting AGW look good.
So of course in brilliant fashion they are displaying just how they are over matched by vastly less money. heh.

Alexander K
February 15, 2012 11:25 am

Anthony, IMHO you are one of the genuine ‘white knights’ in this great battle for truth; Leo Hickman is a Warmist copywriter masquerading as a journalist and most readers who are aware of his track record disbelieve his nonsense. It takes a while, but serial liars and snake-oil salesmen are usually brought down by their own calumny.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
February 15, 2012 11:27 am

The real point is : why should you not receive funding for running WUWT from anyone who wants to fund you? Science should stand up to scrutiny no matter who funds it. These leftwing rags and conspiracy theorists are simply looking for a fight these days and to avoid debate when they continually insist any critic of theirs is being funded by “someone”. They receive more funding than their critics and often it is the taxpayer doing it!