Bishop Hill Hulme's Greenpeace and UN consultancies
Nov 27, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: Hulme Email 2099 is from Helen Wallace, a senior "scientist" at Greenpeace to Mike Hulme.
I am wondering whether you could help us with some urgent (paid) work we need doing for Kyoto. Or perhaps you can recommend someone else?
We want to produce a briefing that replies to all the usual climate 'sceptics' arguments, in the form of short questions and answers.
Later in email 2187, money gets discussed again. This time the questions come from Iain Reddish of Greenpeace, again to Hulme.
...
3. As explained, preferred format would be a one/two sentence quick reply, followed by a 2/3 par more focused explanation/justification, including where necessary any IPCC quotes. Although there will be a final drafting here by Greenpeace, still useful to remember the target gropup - the final paper is aimed at non-specialist journalists who will be covering Kyoto, & non science graduate GP Campaigners worldwide who are likely to have to field questions
4. Let me know your sense of consultancy fee - or how long it will take - so that I can start organising payment this end.
Reading between the lines, Hulme writes the first draft and it is polished by Greenpeace. I wonder if the work was attributed to Hulme and also how much he was paid.
However, in 3473 we find that life as a consultant is tough, with Hulme unable to extract payment from the UN, who had sent him to a workshop in Mexico as a consultant.
After numerous attempts this payment has still not been made into my bank account despite me providing the details of this account several times to UNOPS, numerous emails and telephone calls to new York and despite making a number of calls to my own bank. This delay of over 3 months means that I am still owed about $5,000 by UNOPS.
Reader Comments (13)
Nice work if you can get , especial when you can pass the same 'rubbish' time and again . You have to hope Hulme is keeping the Tax man informed too as they don't think 'saving the planet ' is a good reason to lie either .
Could you imagine the outcry if an email came to light from an oil company to a climate sceptic asking for the exact opposite and offering a consultancy payment?
That sceptic, any organisation association associated with them and research that they had done would forever be condemned as "a big oil shill" passing of fake research like the "tobacco companies" etc.
It would be interesting to know if this moneygrubber would undertake (paid) consultancy to counter the AGW arguements - just short questions and answers would do.
As noted on the More Tips thread, at the time of Kyoto Hulme was also getting WWF assistance (not personal payment, as far as I can tell, but WWF offered to pay for the launch in 0981.txt) to publicise a 'European Scientists' Statement', complete with nudge nudge, wink wink suggestion (by the WWF media person) of what to do if he wants 'to retain "neutrality"....'. Wasn't one of the defences claimed by the UEA after Climategate 1 that its scientists are scientists, not advocates? Hmmm.
I wonder if this is it:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/reports/sceptics.html
Mike mentions the questions and answers fluff from 2099.txt in email 1093.txt.
This is in 2001 (AD not txt...)
The attachment was greenp.mike.wpf.doc but wasn't included in the data as far as I can determine.
The Greenpeace document linked by James Evans isn’t dated, but clearly dates from then, since it references a 1997 document, but doesn’t mention 1998 as the hottest year.
At least Greenpeace is trying to work with some quality sources. My impression of Hulme is that he is one of the more open-minded and honest climatologists.
Surely this conflict of interests is untenable. What can be done about this?
It appears that not all emails up to 2009 have been released by FOIA. Reddish references two emails to Hulme with the questions, but I have not been able to find them in either the 2009 or 2011 releases. They might be in the encrypted .zip file, but we won't know until or if they are released. Makes me think that their is still a lot of stuff yet to be revealed.
"Hulme unable to extract payment from the UN"
This is a typical problem that I have heard many times. The UN never pays. If you ever do contract work, expect to do it for free no matter what the UN promises because they don't pay. It is likely they have all of their money already allocated by the UN Special Committee on Graft and so don't have any to spare for paying actual contractors.
Similarly, in 3655.txt, WWF offers money to Mike Hulme and several others to write about the costs of heat waves, that "gives us a feeling on truly global warming."
Go on tell me what is the whiff of scandal you're alluding to here? That Greenpeace check their scientific claims with a senior scientist ? There's really no pleasing you lot is there.