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
Garrett
February 15, 2012 12:11 pm

But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud… 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.
Good point, but only if you are as critical of those who stole e-mails for use from the CRU during ClimateGate and then used quotes from those e-mails out of context and without consultation with the researchers. If not, then please refrain from such hypocritical wish wash.

Duke of Oil
February 15, 2012 12:13 pm

[snip – policy]

February 15, 2012 12:13 pm

Now you will need more help to moderate this site.
The ones like Exp will post comments that will have to be deleted.
As you delete them keep them where you can show it later as evidence.
They will use the delets to make false claims.
Media Matters will come lurking soon also.

Bob Diaz
February 15, 2012 12:14 pm

RE: 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.
———————————
It seems to me that reporting has become less and less about facts and more and more about their opinion.

February 15, 2012 12:15 pm

In my opinion, this is excellent news! Considering that a small amount of money is revealing more scientific facts than those produced by many billions of dollars, we can only appreciate the ROI for these investments.
For, it’s not embarrassing to receive money for work being excellently done!
Ecotretas

kim2ooo
February 15, 2012 12:18 pm

Phil C says:
February 15, 2012 at 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.
———————————-
1 Big difference “Climategate emails” were verified.
2 We already know some of this leak is a hoax according to Heartland [ Read update above ]
BUT taking what sentence you used as a quote in whole
“His 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.”
Reread the sentence in whole. it is the lack of “controversy and uncertainty” being taught in schools – that dissuade NORMAL SCIENCE from being taught in schools,
“You have a lot of Chutzpah” Yeppers!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😉

February 15, 2012 12:18 pm

Well Let me say this.
Anthony’s site got the climategate mails on Nov 17th
Anthony had these concerns that he asked me to help him with.
1. were the documents real.
2. was it legal to redistribute them.
From nov 17th to nov 19th I worked to see if I could find any signs of fakery.
I called steve mcIntyre to read him mails he had sent that showed up in the stack.
they were real. I argued with charles and Anthony and said this was proof they were real.
Anthony refused to accept this. So did charles.
I read the entire stack. Still Anthony wanted to be sure and check with lawyers.
I asked Tom Fuller to check with his lawyers. They said, without any word from CRU
we were on shakey ground.
On thursday nov 19th, we learned of a mail from CRU/UEA that alerted staff that mails
were posted. That was the confirmation we needed.
looks like desmog should have been more skeptical.
Also, we worried about the mails containing some false mails. Looks like that may have
happened to desmog

oakgeo
February 15, 2012 12:19 pm

Exp ( February 15, 2012 at 11:51 am) says:
“Anthony can have his little bit of fame and the proceeds from the dying fossil fuel industry.”
Check your facts; the fossil fuel industry is alive and well. Oil and other hydrocarbon (i.e. fossil fuel) consumption is rising worldwide. The low-hanging fruit may be gone, but new techniques are opening up huge potentials. Centuries of coal remain. Natural gas is at an historic price disconnect (especially in North America) from oil specifically because horizontal fracking technology has dramatically lowered costs, a technology that will also extend the life of many oil fields. We have hydrocarbons for centuries if we so wish.

Peter Miller
February 15, 2012 12:19 pm

I loved the few alarmist comments here, because they say everything about the CAGW cult.
Just because someone points out the facts and spends $x, then this is evil rubbish. While the other side takes the same facts, distorts the crap out of them, then spends >$2,000x on ‘research’, promotion, salaries etc and wonders why they are steadily losing the argument.
These alarmists essentially argue “How dare anyone give Anthony $44K to set up a website, when this money could have been much better spent by a member of the Team on advertising, distorting climate models, influencing impressionable children or something else equally important.
If nothing else, it helps demonstrate that ‘Big Oil’ funds alarmism and not scepticism, solely because it is the trendy poiltic thing to do. It also helps illustrate the huge difference in funding between sceptics and alarmists – the figure I used here of >2,000 times is probably far too low.
One day WUWT will be recognised for what it really is – a bastion of scientific sanity and realism in an increasingly corrupt scientific world.

E.M.Smith
Editor
February 15, 2012 12:21 pm

Well, several points…
First off: Anthony, that’s ALL you got? For that kind of project? Wow, you run an efficient shop!
A single CISCO router can cost more than that.
Second: Now folks know why I’m so hard to reach via email. Never saw much reason to generate a load of fodder for lawyers, Yellow Journalists, and political fishing expeditions. (That said, I guess I’ll go check my email again and see what folks have sent to me)
Third: Remember that tertiary oil recovery works best with “liquid CO2 injection” into old “spent” oil wells. The “problem” is that buying liquid CO2 is expensive. Now if the Oil Companies could get the COAL Companies saddled with the cost of providing them liquid CO2 for ‘stripper wells’, they would make a bundle… So not a surprise that oil companies FUND WARMERS that then demonise coal; AND constantly demand “sequestration” of coal plant CO2. Exxon in particular has a document (that I can’t find at the moment but have linked to in the past) bemoaning that they had run out of cheap CO2 and needed to pay too much for it…
Fourth: In the spirit of “full disclosure”, I, too, have had “funding” from outside sources. I got $1000 one time from one donor. It came AFTER I’d done the port of GIStemp (and before I did all those graphs using the dT/dt method that showed various months having different trends; neighboring countries having opposing trends, etc.).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/
At about the same time, Anthony gave me an old COMPAQ Evo desktop computer (used, but well loved) and with OpenOffice on it, so I could make decent graphs. I’d estimate the market value of it at less than $200. Still: Thanks, Anthony, it made all those dT/dt graphs and more.
I’ve also had a few dozens of donations from folks at my web site directly, mostly in $10 to $20 sizes from just a few dedicated readers. Oh, and another bogger picked up my air fair and hotel to go to Chicago for the Heartland sponsored climate conference (for which I am again highly grateful… it was the highpoint experience of my ‘global warming’ experience). All told I put it at somewhere near, but likely under, $2000. That’s over several years of work. I figure that’s about the dinner bill for one NIGHT by someone like Hansen or AlGore on the government dime / dollar / kilobucks.
(Why no names on those donors? I do not have their permission, having not talked to any of them in months. Or years.)
Frankly, the complete LACK of any ability to generate funding is why I ended up taking a contract on the other side of the country (doing project management for an entertainment company) to keep beans and rice on the table. I had hoped to, by demonstrating skill and understanding via porting GISTemp, catch the eye of folks with money. What I found out was that there were no folks with buckets of money; just a little bit, and it was being closely managed.
While I would love nothing more than to be running a data center making clean climate / weather / temperature data, or even doing research into the (IMHO bogus) ways it is manipulated by the Hadley Center / NCDC / NASA GISS: They get money in the $Hundreds of $Billions (over years) and on this side it’s $1000 in 3 years and a free lunch…
It is very clear that the strategy of parasitizing government via NGOs and NSF grants is far more effective at sucking in the cash for the ‘warmers’; while living on legitimate ‘hand outs’ from private donors will ALMOST cover the cost of coffee… (At an average of $333 / year, and with $10 / can for coffee, that’s one can a week and 1/2, if I make it myself… Or about 1 Starbucks a day if I buy it… )
Also in full disclosure:
I really really wish I could “embrace the dark side” and just chuck my sense of honesty in the bucket. I’m pretty sure I could be rolling in dough very quickly just by lining up with that NGO, Government Trough, Oil Funding, AlGore Machine side of things. But I can’t. “The truth just is. -E.M.Smith” and I can’t change the truth. So like it or not, I’m stuck on the side of poverty and truth. (Maybe we need a ‘Skeptics Monastery’ 😉
So there you go, Warmers, feel free to now tar me with the brush of “FUNDED!!!!” I’m sure you can find a way…
(The irony of it is that a full search of email archives by Warmers is likely to cost more than the actual funding provided. An amusing factoid…)

February 15, 2012 12:21 pm

Warmists. Home goal. Typical.

Koos
February 15, 2012 12:21 pm

Why on earth would you publice data from NOAA (aeronautics according to Heartland, if they even do not know where NOAA stands for, what could they know about physics?)
if they – NOAA – publish these data themselves. What about the remark about stations too close to buildings etc. These stations are already taken out of data bases to calculate world averaged temperatures. Besides USA is just a small part on the world, do you think that everywhere on this earth temperature measurements are doen too close too buildings or black roads?
Let me guess about these reader friendly graphically presentations: outliers will be out and outliers are stations with higher temperature readings than expected in comparsion with the average temperatures of these stations. It is so obvious what the goal is of this data handling.
Some text is on paper but some text is just spoken and only few know these words.
[Reply: You say: “Let me guess about these reader friendly graphically presentations: outliers will be out and outliers are stations with higher temperature readings than expected in comparsion with the average temperatures of these stations. It is so obvious what the goal is of this data handling.” You are confusing Anthony, who I know to be completely honest, with various government bureaucrats and university types who do exactly what you “guess” Anthony would do. ~dbs, mod.]

Birdieshooter
February 15, 2012 12:24 pm

Chris Colose
If we are all being duped by things like the sea level post why doesnt anyone from the AGW crowd ever undupe us. No, all we get is a lot of pedantic, shrill whines from the pseudo-scientists that never add to the science but rather just a lot of personal attacks. Some science

February 15, 2012 12:25 pm

In the end Anthony’s project will be judged by the facts. I’ll suggest a totally open approach to the budget , schedule, and design process. There’s nothing to hide and take an opportunity to show
people how openness works. Show the IPCC how to take comments. let folks review it. Build it in the open. Just a thought.

LOL in Oregon
February 15, 2012 12:25 pm

Haaa, Haaa, Haaaa, Haaaa!
$6.5 million?
Mice nuts!
How much was spend getting all the attendees to that last conference in S. Africa?
$40K for a web site?
Must be a cheap date!
Who ever heard of that cheap a web site having any glitz!
Must be hard data site, no glamor, just the facts or no one would look at it!
On the other hand, isn’t it amazing what the minions of the AGW religion will do to preserve their their access to the public till!
LOL in Oregon

Robin Guenier
February 15, 2012 12:26 pm

I hope this story gets wide publicity: all these warmist hysterics at the shock/horror discovery that the evil Heartland has an annual budget of $6.5m (c.f. Greenpeace’s measly $310m) and has the temerity to actually fund people who share its views. Why are these well-heeled warmists so concerned about a tiny, ill-funded organisation? It illustrates perfectly their lack of confidence in the validity of their claims and in the real strength of their position.
And as Heartland is, I believe, the only body of any significance promoting CAGW scepticism, this torpedoes those assertions about “a well-funded, highly organised denial machine”. Is Big Oil asleep – where’s the massive funding?

SandyInDerby
February 15, 2012 12:26 pm

Hi Anthony,
do people think you do all the work you do on fresh air? I go with the theory that once the sums involved become known then the ranks of scepticism will grow.
Have you seen this (via Bishop Hill) your $44K pales into insignificance against the UK university funding; £1 = $1.57 so the funding is over $100 million.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/uk-universities-receive-72-million-p-a-for-climate-research/

Duke of Oil
February 15, 2012 12:27 pm

How do we know these documents were stolen? The word of the “victim”? Didn’t UEA-CRU claim theft too?
I didn’t believe UEA-CRU and I don’t believe Heartland either. This sounds like the work of an insider either angry with Heartland or a conscientious whistle blower.
Consistency, people. Don’t add hypocrisy and double standards to the list of things the other side will take up for their attacks.
I’m all for throwing Heartland and cohorts under the bus. The funding for Heartland is almost certainly going to dry up anyway so it’s no additional loss and a good way to save some face. Not maintaining the anonymity of donors who were promised it is incompetent and won’t be tolerated. Nobody gets a second chance with the same donors after screwing up that badly. New donors will be scared off. Whowever was milking this cow is going to have find other means of paying the bills going forward.

KarlL
February 15, 2012 12:28 pm

Watts:
> “Show me where “fossil fuel money” is involved, provide a citation.”
What are you talking about?! Have you not read the leaked documents from Heartland?! Do you not know they are funded from fossil fuel money?
Or are you simply pretending that because the money is paid to you via Heartland rather than directly from the Kochs then it is no longer ‘dirty’ money? That would be disingenuous, at best.
> “the Climate Research Unit in the UK is funded by…”
Another weak attempt at distracting from the fact that you have accepted money that originates from the fossil industry via an organization that wants to shut out opposing opinions and stop science teachers from teaching science. Have you no integrity?
REPLY: And again, provide a citation that shows I’ve accepted fossil fuel money. At the same time explain why it is OK for the CRU to get funding from BP, Shell, and the DOE – Anthony

R Barker
February 15, 2012 12:29 pm

I suppose it goes without saying that the subject article in the Guardian by Suzanne Goldenberg lacks journalistic objectivity. Her repeated choice of adjectives and phrases throughout the entire article flag this as an editorial opinion, not a news report. Maybe that is what was intended.

Eric Seufert
February 15, 2012 12:32 pm

I had to go over to the guardien article. Pathetic. Writting like it is a so aweful to get funding. Compared to billions funding CO2 will kill us? Laughable. I had to write their email as to how pathetic it was.

alasmaci
February 15, 2012 12:32 pm

Anthony, considering Dr. Hansen’s response, should you not lay off the “growing financial scandal” business? You can legitimately criticize his activism and its influence on his science without resorting to smears like that.

Pete in Cumbria UK
February 15, 2012 12:33 pm

Grasping at straws and in doing so exposing what a bunch of utter hypocrites they really are.
If they really were the bunch of touchy-feely bleeding heart Bambi loving think of the children caring socialist types they crack themselves up to be, they would help fund the sceptic position themselves. They would realise that such support and egalitarianism would reinforce their message/position.
But no.
They go all out on a grasping, money driven and self serving agenda that reveals their true colours.
Gawd help us -because as is being revealed – warmista only help themselves.

February 15, 2012 12:35 pm

Ohhhhh, a Seth Borenstein alert.
Can’t wait to see that “impartial and balanced” story.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 12:36 pm

You Guys are unreal says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:46 am
“As for the person who broke into Heartland’s system… I hope they go to jail for this cyber crime.”
Errm, you guys called the HACKER who stole from the CRU a ‘hero’. Whereas in this case it’s been reported as an inside whistleblower. That’s a whole different ball game.

Same goes for the Palin leak. Now, please contact the UK police and inform then that is was a hack and not a leak.

1 4 5 6 7 8 25