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
Phil C
February 15, 2012 12:39 pm

kim2ooo —
This is all I’m asking:
1. Define “controversy” and “uncertainty” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education
2. Define “Normal Science” as it applies to K-12 natural sciences education

Stephen Richards
February 15, 2012 12:39 pm

Craig Loehle says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:59 am
Yeah, it is expensive to put out propaganda, but cheap to tell the truth (you terrible person you). Thank God we live in the Internet age.
THE QUOTE OF THE DAY !!

TheFlyingOrc
February 15, 2012 12:40 pm

It’s not hypocrisy, Duke of Oil – Heartland has explained exactly how the documents were obtained. It wasn’t “a hacker”, it was “the person who called and faked their identity”. It’s basic social engineering, it happens all the time. There’s no real reason to not believe their story. I mean, they COULD be lying, but nothing in their behavior suggests it.

Capo
February 15, 2012 12:40 pm

Craig Loehle
Nice to see you here, but your post disappoints.
I’ve read your name in the documents and would like to here a comment of you if it’s true that you’ve got money from Heartland.

Alexander K
February 15, 2012 12:41 pm

It speaks volumes for Leo Hickman’s and DeSmogBlog’s credibility and journalistic ethics, not to mention their veracity, to learn that the document/s they built this entire piece of childish and vituperative nonsense from is a fake! And all of that hatred spilling from the Hickman’s idiotic followers is illuminating, if not terribly enlightening.

Stephen Richards
February 15, 2012 12:41 pm

Duke of Oil says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Anthony, is this our theif ?,

Capo
February 15, 2012 12:43 pm

Anthony
It’s true, that Heartland has up to know one donor (Anonymous Donor), giving $44,000 for your project. But if I’ve read correctly the documents, Heartland pledged $88,000 for your project and hopes to find further donors for the other 44,000.

Tom in Florida
February 15, 2012 12:46 pm

Koos says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:53 am
You have no right to be informed of anything a private person does with private money. Only those providing the money have that right. For those using public funds, we the taxpayers all have the right to know what our money is being spent on and what the results of that spending are because it is we the taxpayers that are providing the money.

APACHEWHOKNOWS
February 15, 2012 12:47 pm

The AGW posters will not use facts, they will not respond to the facts presented by those here.
Approach this understanding how they fight. You will wear your fingers to the bone typing in facts only to have the subject changed, a personal attack on you or your grammar as a response, or any number of misdirections. Its all they have as they passed the fact check sign long ago.

u.k.(us)
February 15, 2012 12:48 pm

So, the leaker, has unintentionally brought to the fore, the baser instincts of the CAGW religion.
Or, was it all just counter-espionage ?
No matter, result the same.
I do feel sorry for Anthony, being stuck in the middle once again 🙁

KR
February 15, 2012 12:51 pm

Very interesting – looking at the Heartland Institute, they claim that the “Strategy” document is a fake. I’m finding that a bit hard to believe. Why?
Anthony Watts has confirmed the $44,000 already generated by the HI for his website (which, incidentally, is quite reasonable for that level of effort), and the goal of $90,000. Bob Carter has confirmed that he has received monies as well. Both of these are in agreement with the “Strategy” document – and as such confirmations of content.
From having looked at the strategy .PDF, it is clearly a scanned document, from hardcopy. I would suspect that it’s real.

I would find it hard to support a group that supports “…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.” Or that has spends hundreds of thousands to “…undermine the official United Nation’s IPCC reports…”. Those are not the actions of a group who believes the data supports them.
REPLY: Actually two things show it is fake.
1. Heartland confirms they do all communications with Board members electronically, not with printed pages.
2. The $90K figure is wrong, and not repeated in any other documents. my budget numbers were based on specific budget costs. Yet the fake doc rounds up to $90,000, a sign of trying to inflate the issue.
– Anthony

Robert in Calgary
February 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Stay strong Anthony.
This is more proof of how successful you have become. And, in the end, it’s a way to get some free publicity for the project…..
I’ve also just made a donation.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Compare and contrast the funding. This really is David V Goliath.
DAVID
US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0
Heartland Institute $6.4m (a shockingly high figure)
GOLIATH
NSW climate change $750m
US government funding for climate science and technology $7,000m
I propose government funding for sceptical scientists, that should end this kind of hullabaloo once and for all. But nooooooooooooooooooo because the science is settled despite 15 years of a temperature standstill. A deceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The curious return of snow in recent years which was just a thing of the past. Even on Tunisia’s desert for goodness sake.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/

wte9
February 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Anthony,
I read much of the post but did not see an answer to this question: Were you going to disclose the funding when the website was launched? Sorry if it that was answered and I missed it.
REPLY: Sure, when the new website is launched, it will show how it all came together, but that’s still months ahead – Anthony

February 15, 2012 12:58 pm

It was fascinating to read how the Heartland documents (faked/altered and others) prove, once and for all, that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is so high and dominated by positive feedbacks that the human race is doomed due to CO2.
\sarc
I wonder if all this jumping around by the alarmists will precipitate the release of the password for the remaining Climategate emails?

Mark F
February 15, 2012 1:01 pm

Perhaps Lefebvre will pull (his rumored) funding from desmog, now, lest his own reputation be further eroded.

Bruckner8
February 15, 2012 1:02 pm

I’m thrilled Anthony gets funding of any kind!

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:03 pm

Exp says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm
……………………………
And you have openly claimed not to have taken money from these sources previously on this blog, Anthony. You have been dishonest.

I vaguely recall that the comment was made well BEFORE the funding. In which way is that dishonest. Example: I have never been to China (true). Tomorrow I get on a plane and go to China. Am I being dishonest?

RockyRoad
February 15, 2012 1:03 pm

KarlL says:
February 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm

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?

And have you no brains?
Do you eat food that is produced by energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
Do you live in a house that is produced by energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
Do you drive a car that a) comes from raw materials, b) was built and delivered, and c) uses energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
Do you use a computer and internet that is powered by energy that “originates from the fossil industry”?
If your answer is “Yes” to any of the above, then you are an absolute hyprocite (and brainless because you’ve given it no thought).
If your answer is “No” to all the above, then we’ll just call you Fred Flinstone and ask how living in a fantasy works for you.

RockyRoad
February 15, 2012 1:04 pm

The reason this is assymetrical warfare is because regardless of how much money the CAGW side spends, it doesn’t change the truth. Period.

David
February 15, 2012 1:05 pm

TheFlyingOrc says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:53 am
Anthony, could you say that 100% of the money would go towards setting up the website, and 0% in your pocket? I think it is probably reasonable if this is not the case, but if it IS the case, that’s a very powerful argument against it.
==========================
Dear Orc, please explain the “powerfull” case against it if Anthony accepted any funding for his personal time. He has created a web site that attracts millions of hits supplying factual knowldege not articulated in the MSM. If, as a result of this, his time is rewarded financially, and enables a better more informative product what is the problem?

timg56
February 15, 2012 1:05 pm

Koos,
Are you involved with science education?
I’ve as a volunteer for over 16 years and I can honestly say that I wouldn’t let some of the people over at sks or RC anywhere near a classroom of kids. They are preachers not educators. Any good teacher wouldn’t allow the term “climate change” in a science course. In Government, Social Studies, Ethics, or related courses, sure. But not a science class. Climate change is not a science subject, it is a political and policy one. Math, physics, chemistry, biology, etc are science topics.

Jimbo
February 15, 2012 1:07 pm

R. Gates says:
February 15, 2012 at 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?

What if it was leaked by a whistleblower? They have protection under UK law I understand so there would be no crime to act against.

son of mulder
February 15, 2012 1:08 pm

“The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain”
And $80,000 was spent spreading the message that 1+1=2.
$200,000 spent spreading the message that gravity acts downwards.
A massive $300,000 spent spreading the message that water is wet.
How could anyone with a brain possibly teach that climate change is not controversial and uncertain?

Jim G
February 15, 2012 1:08 pm

“oldgamer56 says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:16 am
Anthony,
Stay strong. Journalists today are like a pack of coyotes, they only attack in packs and only if they sense weakness. Total transparency and the truth is your best weapons.
Kaboom says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:19 am
One could actually only hope for this story to get wide traction, if only to juxtapose the tiny budget of Heartland against the opinion buying machines on the other side of the argument.”
We have a long way to go to change public perception and are fighting an uphill battle with today’s complete lack of real journalism and a left leaning press corps. Example:
I listen to NPR to keep on top of what the “enemy” is promulgating. This morning there was a brief item on “fashion”. In this piece NPR noted that although coats had been “out of fashion” for some time “probably due to global warming” they were again becoming more popular. One of the factors they noted for the US was the “improving economy”.
I noted that though this little diatribe covered both US and European fashion, and global warming was mentioned, no mention was was made of the extreme cold being endured right now in Europe and the possibility that global warming was no longer an issue there, or that folks over there might be buying an extra coat to wear to bed.
So, NPR got in a plug for the Obama administration regarding the supposed improving economy is spite of the fact of the vast underemployment and falsification of the unemployment stats being used which do not count people who have given up looking for work. Plus a plug for global warming all in a fashion article!
This is an example of the insidious nature of of the propaganda being constantly used by the left to bombard the the public in our country and imbue in them the proper leftists opinions.

1 5 6 7 8 9 25