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
Phil C
February 15, 2012 11:52 am

kim2ooo — You have a lot of Chutzpah saying I should provide a complete quotation at this website considering how the climategate emails were addressed here. That said, I don’t see a signifiacnt, material difference between my abbreviated quotation and yours. Please enlighen us.

Koos
February 15, 2012 11:53 am

If the Heartland budget is real, it appears that the organizations controlled by Anthony Watts, are getting $44,000 annually in Heartland funding… Watts has always denied he was getting fossil fuel industry money. And of course, we already knew he was getting money from a Fox News affiliate in the past.
$88,000 Surface Stations Project
Payments to ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create web site featuring data from NOAA’s new network of surface stations. First payment of $44,000 in January, second of same amount contingent on fundraising around mid-year.
Also Heartland published his fallacious report claiming that the temperature records were changed by “dropping” stations in the past… I wonder how much money, or non-monetary compensation Watts got from Heartland for that piece of propaganda?
Shouldn’t someone ask Anthony Watts to come clean on how much Heartland funding, travel expenses, publishing expenses, conference fees etc., he has gotten and accepted?

Frank K.
February 15, 2012 11:56 am

Michael Tobis says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
OK Michael. Let’s stop all government funding for “dubious” climate “research” projects, and Anthony will stop receiving funds from the Heartland Institute. That sounds fair to me.
For everyone’s reading pleasure…
Billions in government Climate Ca$h for the arrogant climate elites:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf

Severian
February 15, 2012 11:57 am

Barry Woods said: “A website devoted to making NOAA data easy to understand by lay people seems like a good idea.”
To most people, yes. But to AGW alarmists, not so much. Think about the resistance the Catholic Church had to Bibles being printed in anything but Latin. They didn’t want the unwashed masses able to read scripture directly for themselves, they wanted them to have to come to the priests for the knowledge. To ensure they “got it right” and coincidentally keep the priests in a position of power and able to tell the masses what to do. Similar issue here, it’s less a science than a religion sadly.
Why, if you were able to see the real data, simply presented, sans “adjustments” and commentary from the AGW clergy as to what it all means, in a nice predigested press release.

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 11:58 am

Ah, the entire climate strategy document is fake. Delightful.

Koos
February 15, 2012 11:58 am

Heartland:
“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.”
Yes keep them stupid! Do not reveal the truth about global warming. Hide the facts behind curtains of “candy science” t o be found every day on misleading websites fully paid by fossile fuel diggers.

February 15, 2012 11:58 am

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
The flagship of Greenpeace that was sunken by the French secret service was replaced thanks to a donation of a billionnaire (and later again by the French government). Rumours are going around that this was one of the owners of Phillip Morris. Of course, Greenpeace doesn’t receive any donations from Big Tobacco or other companies…

Steve from Rockwood
February 15, 2012 11:59 am

Shawn Halayka says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:51 am

Anthony, I am loathe to think that there are nefarious schemes and whatnot at play here, but really… $44,000 to write software that analyses data? I made that much in an entire year as a professional programmer. It took me a day to write up …

Was this when you were living in your parent’s basement? $44,000 isn’t very much money unless you’re buying a watch. I wouldn’t be interested in starting such an ambitious project for which I wasn’t being paid. I’m just not that stupid.
Oh, sorry Anthony. I meant dedicated. Time to go to the tip jar 😉

Beesaman
February 15, 2012 11:59 am

Horray! There are two sides to the climate debate!
Odd that the Guardian has only just noticed, maybe as ‘journalists’ they might want to ‘investigate’ how much the green industry and green politicos pour into the AGW cash bucket.
They might also want to explain why they appear to endorse the closing down of scientific debate and are instead happy to tolerate a totalitarian view of science as espoused by a number of AGW supporters.

George E. Smith;
February 15, 2012 11:59 am

“”””” “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 “””””
So where did you come up with the idea that “conspiracy” is necessarily, either “immoral” or “illega”l, or that it constitutes “conniving”. Conspiracy is simply people or persons or organisations getting together to plan some joint strategy, aimed at benefitting (hopefully) some common interest they may have. Happens all the time, as a standard operation of businesses of all kinds, or governmental bodies such as the US Congress. Different parties to the conspiracy have different interests or emphases on their interests, and collectively they negotiate some procedure or course of action that is acceptable to all.
Goes by all kinds of names; “strategy sessions”, “business plans”, “white papers”, you name it.
Yes it is SOP for outsiders who are not privy to the conspiracy procedings, to assume that it must be some nefarious purpose, since they are kept in the dark; as in it is none of their business; so they use the “conspiracy” term as a derogatory comment.
These days, so many people have no visible means of earning a living doing honest work, they figure they can advise others on how to do their work, whether their advice is either needed or wanted.
Now in matters funded by the tax paying people; other than matters of national security, the people have a right to know what they are getting or learning from their tax contributions.

Lars P.
February 15, 2012 12:01 pm

Don’t let yourself be fooled by this or any such action Anthony. As many other say, please continue to do what you did, point at them and the false science.
As Jo Nova said, skeptics are winning:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/we-are-winning-eh-part-4-or-so/
Speaking of Jo, I think she is right again, lets do talk about money:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 12:03 pm

Phil Clarke says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:17 am
An anonymous multmillionaire is funding the suppression of science teaching in your country. How is this not headline news?
————————
Actually, the suppression came from the other side. I was forced to buy an “Incontinent Truth” at my school.
No, I didn’t misspell 😉

DJ
February 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Not surprisingly, the misinformation on WUWT “misinformation” is spreading like wildfire.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.ars

February 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Why is it that several commenters have said it would be ok for Mr. Watts to accept Heartland money as long as it wasn’t for himself? (ie for servers and a programmer) Can someone’s facts only be valid if he is totally unpaid? What about every single proponent of global warming? I do believe they are mostly paid quite well as gov employees.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Tell us Anthony, did you become a skeptic before or after the funding? No need to answer I already know you were sceptical before. No change there then.
Keep up the good work and I hope you get lots more FUNDING from Heartland and other concerned organisations; concerned that people are being swindled in the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.

Exp
February 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Hateful comments? Your blog has been a haven form those posting hate material against honest scientists for years and you have willfully provided a platform for them.
The comments are littered with abuse of scientists and claims of them presenting a science based on making money.
And you have openly claimed not to have taken money from these sources previously on this blog, Anthony. You have been dishonest.
[Reply: Anthony is not dishonest. He has stated that this is his first grant, so you owe him an apology for libel. And what you call “abuse” is free speech. As opposed to blogs like RealClimate, which heavily censors scientific views they disagree with. ~dbs, mod.]

February 15, 2012 12:05 pm

Keep Calm and Carry On. I am confident this hullabaloo will shake out to your advantage.
The “teaching science” quote is an obvious piece of ungrammatical sloppy writing, which I suspect should have read “teaching that the science is settled” or some such. However, it is now going to be very hard to prove this ,if it is the case, to everyone’s satisfaction!
Everything else I have seen so far is ,basically, unremarkable and exactly what I would have thought, deep down, all sides of this debate would have expected to have seen.
Much ado about nothing.

February 15, 2012 12:06 pm

Thanks, Anthony. We will be all using your project, when done. Even the alarmists will.

February 15, 2012 12:06 pm

There are some folks responding here who clearly have never run a software project and have no apparent basis for their SWAGS and their crude suggestions that Anthony is somehow lying. Given that the average salary in Silicon Valley is now $100K, it is a good bet that you are not going to find a competent and qualified freelance programmers for much less than $100/hr. Assuming 50% of the budget is for design/programming/db then you are looking at about 200 hrs or 5 weeks. You are going to be very lucky to get this designed,tested, implemented and documented in that time period. If you off-shored it, we used programmers in Nepal, you might lower it somewhat but the costs of the inevitable miscommunications on this type of project can be very high. We did lots of survey and interactive reporting work and, even with our Nepalese programmers, we needed to charge $150 per hr. plus for the work. Good luck with the project.

wobble
February 15, 2012 12:07 pm

KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:58 am
…science teachers from teaching junkscience.

I fixed this phrase for you by adding the word “junk”, KarIL.

February 15, 2012 12:07 pm

[snip – policy]

R. Gates
February 15, 2012 12:09 pm

Heartland said:
“But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts…”
—–
So Heartand is also strongly condemning the actions of those who released the Climategate emails?

February 15, 2012 12:10 pm

“John Mason says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:29 am
88k for a website is the astonishing bit WRT Surface Stations. I know loads of people who could have done it for wayyy under that! As to the rest, guess we shall have to see….
REPLY: Actually it is $44K, and the phase 2 to keep it running may/may not be funded. Try hiring a good programmer for a year and purchasing the relevant equipment for $44K – Anthony”
$44K including app dev with a server and backup solution? Maybe you could work with us. A straight pizza box server with SCSI RAID runs at 10k. Cheap, server class, tape backup only just gets interesting at once you go past $1k. And cheap contract development is $25/hr. The market for contract runs at $50 usually. Then there is rack space, cabling (pulling a cable is $100), domain space, and bandwidth (commerical sites still get soaked).

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 12:10 pm

lohle – No, but if you’re going to fight an ideological war, you need to keep your motives beyond reproach. Which, of course, Anthony has done.
Also, read the press release everyone, the damning document is faked.

3x2
February 15, 2012 12:10 pm

Had a quick look at the documents and I don’t see much to write about. “Shock : Organisation found doing what it was set up to do” (which is probably a news item on its own).
It is interesting watching “The Guardian” attempt to find something “juicy” while having ignored the likes of FoE, Greenpeace and hundreds of other carbon scammers for twenty years. Now private documents from Deutsche Bank or Goldman concerning the EU $100+ billion carbon trading scam – those I would pay to view.
While it is obviously not my in-box filling up with questions (and much else too I’ll wager) I would recommend that you spend the least amount of time possible dealing with this non event.

1 3 4 5 6 7 25