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
David
February 15, 2012 1:36 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.
==================
Dear Youguys, why is every CAGW proponent so blind and illogical in their comments? First of all one man said, “I hope they go to jail”; not “us guys”. Also ,the sceptics have for a long time maintained that FOIA likely was not a hacker, but an inside whislte blower. Finally, CRU is a public institution, whereas heartland is private. Please come back when you can make one cogent point.

February 15, 2012 1:37 pm

timg56 says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Well Said!!!!!

CodeTech
February 15, 2012 1:37 pm

Seriously, $44k for a programmer for a year?
As a “good” programmer and Web 2.0 developer, I can assure you that is more like 3 months worth. IF I’m on board with a project.
The group of unknown names posting on this thread are clearly unaware of, well, much.

JonasM
February 15, 2012 1:37 pm

I prefer to wait to see some proof that the key document was faked. If it’s true that, according to their press release, “It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact” then, unless the contradictory information is of a sensitive nature, I would expec that HI will provide it.
Until that happens, or HI reveals other information that someone else created the document, we only have evidence for the document being a fake, not proof.

Nial
February 15, 2012 1:38 pm

Anthony,
I clicked through to see what the Guardian had to say and one of the things that struck me was this sentence….
“But Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent _anti-science_ blogs”
Is this not almost libelous?
I’m pretty laid back but the constant lies and deceit from the warmists is really starting to piss me off.

Matt
February 15, 2012 1:39 pm

Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous, and you deserve this Heartland scandal. Nothing you say can ever stand up in court, as the science of climate change already has. You are a disgraceful little blogger and a merchant of doubt about a very serious issue. Good luck spinning this story, hack.
Love,
Every future human on this planet

DirkH
February 15, 2012 1:39 pm

Does anyone read DeSmogBlog?
Their Alexa rank: 144,552
WUWT: 15,974
They’re just jealous. Hey, don’t be mad, DeSmogBlog. It could be worse.
Realclimate: 223,449

Thomas
February 15, 2012 1:42 pm

Private individuals giving donations to private organizations to help other private individuals conduct private activities. Wow, that’s all they could come up with?
Keep up the good work, Anthony, you’re obviously getting “The Team” and friends worried…

Mr Lynn
February 15, 2012 1:48 pm

coeruleus says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:55 am
. . . Firstly, as far as I understand it Heartland is a tax-exempt organization that merely seeks to provide information for public policy discussions. The leaked documents, if real, would seem to suggest that their activities go beyond that scope. It appears to me that they should no longer be tax-exempt and instead be classified as lobbyists. . .

The so-called ‘environmental’ organizations like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Foundation are also tax-exempt, yet propagandize and proselytize at every turn, including testifying before Congressional committees. Should they also be “classified as lobbyists”?
In point of fact, there are specific rules in law that define ‘lobbyists’ at both federal and state levels.
What is ludicrous is how the warmist press and blogs are crowing over the discovery that Anthony received a small grant from a minor think tank like Heartland for a public-service website, while vast sums flow into all manner of government and academic entities for the avowed purpose of revealing the purported dangers of man-made ‘global warming’. It is no accident that in many fields of science, to get a grant from institutions like the NSF, you have to demonstrate its relevance to ‘climate change’ (viz. this post from yesterday: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/a-fish-story-from-antarctica/#more-56596 ).
I hope some other organizations and individuals with deep pockets will now seize the opportunity to publicly offer grants to independent scientists and researchers like E. M. Smith, Willis Eschenbach, Steve McIntyre, and of course Anthony Watts, to enable them to continue their work without having to rely on ‘day jobs’. Perhaps someone could establish an award like the MacArthur Foundation’s ‘genius’ awards for such brave pioneers in non-governmental, truly skeptical science.
/Mr Lynn

manicbeancounter
February 15, 2012 1:48 pm

DeSmogblog are revealing some terrible truths. Heartland is trying to influence people by funding people that help make real-world data and climate-related science intelligible to the masses. So that ordinary folk can understand the real world. What is more, some folks love it so much that (allegedly) they are willing to shell out real money to spread the message. You have those who practice the dark arts of public relations and political spin really scared.
If you look at DeSmogBlog (or its links) you will not find out the following.
1. Heartland, on its website has 7 policy areas with 20 staff (out of 40 total). Environment issues occupy 3 of those.
2. In each of six areas, (Environment is one) it produces a monthly newsletter on topical issues. Sent free to 8400 elected officials, both Republican and Democrat. I am sure the CIA uses the same methods to remain secretive about its objectives.
3. By far the largest recipient of monthly grants for environment is Craig D Idso. DeSmog (nor the Sourcewatch link) provides links to the nasty co2science.org that this money helps fund. This provides a database, with summaries, of peer reviewed literature on (a) proxy studies for/against the MWP (b) ocean acidification studies (c) CO2 effects on plant growth (b) instant graphs of temperature anomalies.
If Heartland continues spending $1m+ a year on letting people know directly about climate change, it is going to throw out of work tens of thousands of people (many with doctorates) who spend long hours and billions a year of taxpayers money trying to put an alternative spin on the data. People should realise that Heartland and their cohorts are wrecking a whole industry and must be stopped.
On the other hand, a re-working of the assumptions behind economic models produced by Greenpeace and the UNIPCC, could show that wrecking this industry could make the average person on this plant 44% better off by 2050 than with the wrong set of policies, and have hundreds of millions of more lovely people around as well.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2011/07/20/ipcc-on-the-knife-edge-renewables-scenarios/

Kevin611
February 15, 2012 1:49 pm

Keep up the good work. The truth will prevail. This will turn into another nail in the coffin for desmogblog.

DirkH
February 15, 2012 1:50 pm

William M. Connolley says:
February 15, 2012 at 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.”
Wonderful. Wikipedia Winston Smith falls for the propaganda of his own site, then complains about spin.

KR
February 15, 2012 1:51 pm

Anthony“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.”
My apologies, you are correct – while the “Strategy” document stated:
“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data” (emphasis added)
the budget (a separate document) lists:
$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.

So going from that document, $44,000 budgeted, another $44,000 contingently targeted, $88,000 total – not $90,000. I was off by 2.2% from reading the strategy document. However, considering the small difference, and the fact that “around $90,000” (not $44,000/$44,000) is stated in the strategy document, I hope you understand why I made that error. And again – that’s certainly not out of line for a significant web project!

As above, I also find it curious that the ‘strategy’ document is scanned hardcopy. I would think that someone faking a document to go with a set of existing documents would use the same technique. And unless the budget has been significantly altered, all of the items in the strategy document are listed as expenses in the budget – including aspects that you, Carter, and Wojick have all confirmed.

Framl
February 15, 2012 1:52 pm

The politicization of climate science isn’t a conservative, libertarian or liberal issue: We need to reach people of all points of view. Funding from an organization with a particular political viewpoint may make it harder to reach those who don’t hold that political point of view.
Next time, consider asking your readers first for funding and perhaps assistance with programming. If you think your reader’s generosity is smaller than the financial needs of your ambitions, perhaps ask Heartland fund any shortfall.

DirkH
February 15, 2012 1:52 pm

Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous, and you deserve this Heartland scandal. Nothing you say can ever stand up in court, as the science of climate change already has.”
You mean like Stefan Rahmstorff, PIK scientist who slandered a German journalist and lost in court?

February 15, 2012 1:53 pm

hey guys check the document properties.. the forged document is missing something.

Sun Spot
February 15, 2012 1:55 pm

Anthony, keep doing the good science I see hear every day, the funding is a red herring.
It seems you now have a new regular contributor by the name of Bill Connolley, you know you’re scaring the CAGW crowd when Bill comes here for some good science.
Keep Up The Good Work Anthony.

February 15, 2012 1:55 pm

The Git notes that WUWT has devoted quite a large amount of space to debunking climate sceptic myths, not just CAGW myths. OTOH CAGW sites seem to delight in claiming that sceptics deny the fact that Earth has warmed since the LIA which is clearly a LIE. They also reveal themselves by denigrating the concept of Anthony transforming NOAA data into easily comprehended form. Some of us here will remember how Steve McIntyre was blocked from accessing data paid for from the public purse.
Clearly the CAGWers are afraid not just of the fantasy of CAGW, but allowing sceptics access to the data they purport supports their case. If CAGW was real, wouldn’t they want us to access the data?

Frank K.
February 15, 2012 1:56 pm

Smokey says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Smokey – here’s some more data for you. If you want to see what our climate heros at NASA and NOAA have been raking in, go here:
http://php.app.com/fed_employees10/search.php
Publicly available federal government salary information at your fingertips. Just select Goddard Space Flight Center or NOAA and type in a name. In particular (since climate folks are interested in trends), look at the salary increases netted by our pals at GISS and NOAA from 2009 – 2010. This was a time when the non-government economy was in the tank – and friends of mine were being let go from their jobs.

Peter Miller
February 15, 2012 1:57 pm

I believe the alarmists ranting here (and Al Gore etc) should be awarded the age old American Indian title of “Walking Eagle”.
Sounds impressive and flattering until you know the real meaning:
So full of shit, he can’t fly.

John from CA
February 15, 2012 1:58 pm

Congrats Anthony, it sounds like a great project.

Coach Springer
February 15, 2012 1:58 pm

If the 2012 Climate Strategy Memo is a fake, then the clumsy curriculum strategy from whence it came would be fake. Since Heartland withheld other comments for further review, they are quite sure the memo is fake. Also, Heartland seems to have verification of the theft, how it occurred and what was stolen but is reviewing to see if any of the stolen stuff was altered / phonied up too.
It’s time someone here noted that Heartland hosted annual CAGW debates (at those modest but still high priced NY hotels) where the skeptical side routinely mopped the floor with the alarmists. I believe Gore, Hansen, et. al. were invited but did not accept. It’s also time someone acknowledged a high level of reliablity from Heartland projects. There’s a reason they’re being attacked with fraud and ad nauseum ad hominem. They’ve needed to discredit this source of information for a long, long time and there is no bad science with which to do it.
BTW, they aren’t subject to FOIA request are they? And yet the science is available. Making Mann and others look bad by doing what they wouldn’t. Isn’t Heartland just horrible?
The media coverage is a lesson in Lysenkoistic sycophancy. Don’t dare question prevailing authoritative narrative or you will be taken out.

February 15, 2012 1:59 pm

The BBC’s Richard Black makes a false statement about WUWT:
BBC:
“Further funding will go to climate blogger and former meteorologist Anthony Watts for a web-based project aiming to demonstrate problems in the US network of temperature monitoring stations – an issue whose irrelevance to the big questions of climate change was emphatically demonstrated last year by the Berkeley Earth Project, which found station quality was not a factor in modern measurements of global warming.”
ie the money was nothing of the sort, it was clearly described as a project for making public weather data more easily and accessibly available to the public
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991
maybe it is time for the lawyers, Richards predjudices seem to be at work. this is misrepresentation and potentially reputationally damaging to WUWT

Russ in Houston
February 15, 2012 2:00 pm

Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Please explain where/what the scandal is. The only scandal that I have read about so far is someone stealing documents from Heartland. Other than that I don’t see any laws being broken.

February 15, 2012 2:01 pm

Matt says:
February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Your anti-science ramblings are ridiculous,…… blather, blather…..
==========================================
LOL…. you guys are a hoot…. you got any specifics?

1 7 8 9 10 11 25