3In contrast to the literally trillions of dollars of global expenditure ultimately urged on world leaders bythese scientists by the end of 2009, the amounts involved in funding their research appear trifling—typically measured in “mere” millions of dollars. (A trillion is a million millions!) But many “climatescientists” built their entire careers on this funding; and so it is not surprising that they became socompletely reliant on this conditional lifeline, that they became single-mindedly focused on achievingthe ends for which they were commissioned—and viciously attacking any intruders who may threatenthat lifeline.In this unfortunate case, a scientist in the former Soviet Union appears to descend to level of taxevasion, in order to maximize the amount of money available. As Stepan Shiyatov writes to Keith Briffa:Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the
money on the personal accounts which wegave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be morethan 10,000 U[nited] S[tates] D[ollars]. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes [...]Unfortunately, all other emails relating to these cash transfers have either been lost, deleted, orwithheld by the Climategate whistleblower, so we don't know whether Keith Briffa complied with thisrequest or not.I believe that this level of financial impropriety would be a rare occurrence—although it does highlightthe fact that some of the people involved in this research were prepared to “bend the rules” in order toachieve their goals. It also reminds us that scientists in general are often ignorant of the requirements of the law; but, most of the time, this does not lead to any significant ramifications. Therefore, althoughthere are other examples of low-level financial impropriety and misappropriation sprinkled throughoutthe Climategate emails, I do not believe that they are of any significance over and above the generalcomments that I have made here, and I will not explicitly list them in the following.
Phil Jones to Alan Robock:Britain seems to have found its [skeptic]. Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good asa couple of yours and he's an utter prat but he's getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his day jobhe teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts the weather from solar phenomena.[...] He's not all bad as he doesn't have much confidence in nuclear-power safety.Alan Robock:Could you please define "utter prat" for me? Sometimes I think we speak the same language, andsometimes I'm not so sure.