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.