Department of Energy money was supposed to go to Tom Wigley, but UEA’s Climate Research Unit didn’t pay Wigley.
The e-mail is below.
>With regard to your message of July 18; “I’ll be back to you once Mike and
>Phil have had a chance to discuss it.” …
>There is nothing to discuss. There is no contract or formal arrangement with
>CRU for Battelle Part 2. The money is mine to do with as I decide, and I
>decided to spend it here. If I had given part of this to CRU, it would have
>been just that — a gift.
>For US DOE, CRU has both a personal and contractual commitment to give some
>money to me. Not only that, CRU has failed to fulfill this obligation for
>previous two years of the US DOE contract — something I find quite
> By not demanding this money, I am essentially *giving* a considerable sum to
>CRU. I’m sorry to have to point this out to you, but obviously I do.
>When I said in my last email that there were no winners or losers with this
>arrangement, I was wrong. CRU is the winner and I am the loser.
>Regarding the issue of whether the work will be done, this is of no
>CRU for the Battelle work. For US DOE, it is an issue that Phil, as the
>in-house PI, should be concerned about. As far as I can see, however, there
>is no problem here. As always, CRU has done far more per $ that any other US
>DOE grant recipient.