Bombshell: IPCC chairman takes money from WWF

Oh dear,  oh dear.  Donna Laframboise writes:

bombshell: the India chapter of the World Wildlife Fund was, too.

That’s right, folks. The chairman of the IPCC is cashing cheques issued by the WWF.

Full story here:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/02/04/pachauri-takes-wwf-money/

There should be no reason for anyone to trust Mr. Pachauri again, as he has been compromised by activism. He’s damaged goods now.

About these ads

86 thoughts on “Bombshell: IPCC chairman takes money from WWF

  1. Oh don’t be so picky, Anthony! It’s the IPCC and their love bunny the WWF. That’s called love baby! What’s a little date, and some late night awkward petting between lovers?

  2. This reallyis the time for Pachauri to step down if the IPCC wants to retain any semblance of respectability going forward.

  3. It’s only fair – they must try to keep up with all that dirty money the oil companies are throwing at the sceptics. /sarc

  4. “That’s right, folks. The chairman of the IPCC is cashing cheques issued by the WWF.”

    I’ve been calling Pachauri a crook since the “voodoo science’ debacle, But this reads as if the chairman of the IPCC is putting checks in his personal account, which I doubt it the case.

  5. has anyone trusted Pachauri in years?

    unfortunately, AAP (Australian Associated Press) obviously still “trusts” Gore enough to contact him and allow him to interfere/inject disinformation in the coming Australian elections:

    5 Feb: Sky News: Gore says direct action plan won’t work
    Australians should take a careful look at the progress made to slow climate change here and around the world before the federal election, former US vice-president Al Gore says.
    The prominent environmental campaigner believes Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax shows courage and vision but the coalition’s direct action plan to deal with climate change won’t work.
    Speaking from Tennessee, Mr Gore said he would be watching how the 2013 federal election unfolded and what that meant for action on climate change.
    ‘I’m very impressed with your current prime minister,’ he told ABC TV on Monday, referring to Labor’s carbon tax.
    ‘She’s shown a great deal of courage and vision.’…
    ***He said with recent floods, fires and extreme weather, there was powerful evidence the climate crisis was having a harsh impact on Australia.
    ***’Mother Nature (is) now speaking very loudly and persuasively, in keeping with what the scientists predicted would unfold,’ he said…

    http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=842546

    5 Feb: BusinessSpectator: AAP with a staff reporter: Al Gore criticises coalition’s climate change strategy

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Gore-says-direct-action-plan-wont-work-4LH2F?OpenDocument&src=hp5

  6. Has been damaged good for quite some time….ever since he was on video guffawing with Supercrite Branson about blasting deniers into space….at least…

  7. Wasn’t he damaged good before this? How many different scandals does it take to truly take someone down that is on “The Team”, someone working for “The Cause”? Probably a lot more than this.

  8. The post reads, “There should be no reason for anyone to trust Mr. Pachauri again.”

    Was there any reason to trust him earlier? He is the IPCC charirman. In and of itself, that should be enough to initiate caution.

  9. He said Any dough is good dough
    So I took what I could get
    Yes I took what I could get
    I took the dough from the Nobel committee
    And From WWF
    Bubububaby From WWF
    Here’s something Here’s something you’ll never gonna forget
    I’m paid by WWF

  10. You’ve got it all wrong. The WWF was reimbursing Pachauri the beer and travel money that was due him.

  11. Some of you are saying he should step down from chair of IPCC.
    I don.t think so – he needs a little more slack rope yet before we take a turn and take his feet from under him; at present he could still get back up and stagger on, and we need to make sure that when he and the IPCC go down they stay down.

  12. This should not surprise anyone. He’s just like Hansen, Gore, et al in the climate money machine…

    Just remember, folks – Green Greed is Good!

  13. I am sure it was for further research on a steamy romance novel. I mean he has to preserve the “wild life”, right?

  14. BMW a sponsor ? Maybe they can explain the conservation in their ‘run-flat’ tyres … that can’t be repaired. In 50,000km of travel I have had to replace 8 tyres through puncturing; tyres in good condition, 2 of which had less than 100km use.

  15. “There should be no reason for anyone to trust Mr. Pachauri again, as he has been compromised by activism. He’s damaged goods now.” Activism seems to have no effect on Jim Hansen’s goverenment job, though.

  16. “There should be no reason for anyone to trust Mr. Pachauri again, as he has been compromised by activism. He’s damaged goods now.”

    Mr. Watts, you mean Pachinko was trustworthy before?

  17. This article is nearly a reason to ‘unfollow’ WUWT. I was really expecting to read that they had given money to him directly – not that they had simply sponsored a conference he organised. You’re really scraping the barrel with this. (I wonder if you will publish this comment?).

  18. This is new news? The guy is a money vacuum-cleaner. Ever read a description of the trappings and grounds of his “institute” in India? Besides, there’s “good money” and there’s “evil money”. The new environmental religion makes a distinction. The “evil money” comes from any for-profit organization. The “good money” comes either from taxpayers’ pockets or from any non-profit purporting to defend the environment, regardless of how money-grubbing, bloated and self-serving that organization might be.

  19. Think positive. If he’s keeping busy with cr@p like this, he won’t have the time to do any more novel writing.

  20. He is a prickly beast. Be interesting to see how he responds …

    Gore with masseuses. Suzuki with teenagers. Italian and French politicians with professional girls …

    Power, money, adulation, sex. What a great combo. Too bad truth-telling wasn’t one of the side-effects.

  21. moqauvin says:
    February 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    This article is nearly a reason to ‘unfollow’ WUWT. I was really expecting to read that they had given money to him directly – not that they had simply sponsored a conference he organised. You’re really scraping the barrel with this. (I wonder if you will publish this comment?).

    OK, not that I’m looking to give Pachauri any cover here, but moquauvin is correct. It’s as ludicrous as accusing Joe Bast of being in some corporation’s pocket because they sponsored one of Heartland’s ICCC’s. I do not claim this tempest in a teapot otherwise suggests Pachauri is as pure as the driven snow, but you can’t hang him on this paltry evidence. Sorry.

  22. “BMW a sponsor ? Maybe they can explain the conservation in their ‘run-flat’ tyres … that can’t be repaired. In 50,000km of travel I have had to replace 8 tyres…”

    BMW is going downhill fast – much of it Green inspired. I eagerly replaced the horrible BMW run-flats with conventional tires after only 5,000 miles of use. And I keep a Continental Comfort Kit (electric tire pump+sealant) in the trunk. They’re rumored to be replacing the excellent straight-six engine with a 4 cylinder turbo and then – unbelievably – an electric engine, like a Prius. What are they thinking!?!

  23. Old bombshell,
    Pachauri set up Glorioil, (now Glori Energy) which is a residual oil extraction technology company. At one time, at least, he was Glorioil’s scientific advisor while being head of the IPCC. Then this numbnuts tells us to give up meat to reduce global warming. I don’t know what to say. Pachauri and Gore are of the same hypocritical cloth. They also follow the money without fail. Scum bags.

  24. pokerguy says:
    February 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    “I’ve been calling Pachauri a crook since the “voodoo science’ debacle, But this reads as if the chairman of the IPCC is putting checks in his personal account, which I doubt it the case.”

    It is my understanding that Pachauri is the creator and sole proprietor of TERI. In that case, the money is going into his pocket. Am I wrong on this?

  25. When will the saint, non-money seeking Rendrand Pinocchio step down as head of the IPCFT (Inter-Governmental Pane on Climate Fairy Tales)?

  26. Theo Goodwin says:
    February 4, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    pokerguy says:
    February 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    “I’ve been calling Pachauri a crook since the “voodoo science’ debacle, But this reads as if the chairman of the IPCC is putting checks in his personal account, which I doubt it the case.”

    It is my understanding that Pachauri is the [1]creator and [2]sole proprietor of TERI. In that case, the money is going into his pocket. Am I wrong on this?

    [1] No, he is not the creator. It was originally funded by J.R.D. Tata, chairman of the TATA Group. It was originally chartered to look into resource depeletion and energy scarcity.

    [2] Not sure what is meant by “sole proprietor”. If you mean in the business sense, as a “one-man band” then definitely not. TERI has about 1,300 employees. Pachauri is the Director General of TERI; think CEO.

  27. Is there evidence that the money went into his pocket whether directly or indirectly (e.g. conference paid him for services or he made profit from it)?

    Otherwise its a nonprofit like thousands of others.

    We know he is dishonest due confict of interest, but what is the money trail in this case?

  28. “OK, not that I’m looking to give Pachauri any cover here, but moquauvin is correct. It’s as ludicrous as accusing Joe Bast of being in some corporation’s pocket because they sponsored one of Heartland’s ICCC’s. I do not claim this tempest in a teapot otherwise suggests Pachauri is as pure as the driven snow, but you can’t hang him on this paltry evidence. Sorry.”

    I’m one of the 2 or 3 who criticized this post as misleading. However, you go too far in the opposite direction in my view. The IPCC is supposed the be above reproach…the gold standard, remember? It’s laughable and pathetic and damning that they’re taking money from groups that have an extreme interest in defending the (it’s always worse than we though) “consensus.”

  29. Add me to the minority position. If someone wants to hold a conference on sustainability, the WWF certainly has the funds and interest to support it. And maybe give some of the execs a nice boondoggle to India for a while.

    Donna says “a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC” and “a sustainability summit is held in Delhi, organized by TERI.” I bet Pachauri had essentially nothing to do do with negotiating for the conference space, the catering, the advertising, the printer. I doubt he did anything except authorize the event, get photographed, promise to talk at a plenary session, and be at the head of the table at a special dinner for sponsors.

    I most especially doubt “is cashing cheques issued by the WWF.” Well, he may be, but I doubt they’re checks issued just because TERI is putting on the event unless it’s a reward for activist of the year or something like that. There’s plenty of other opportunities for the WWF to thank Pachuri for all he does for them.

    Donna provides absolutely no evidence of malfeasance by the WWF. She might have been able to make a case that Pachuri and TERI have a serious ethical problem putting on an event this biased when he’s supposed to be the head of a high quality group of scientists. That’s more significant than an unsupported claim of financial shenanigans.

  30. moqauvin says:
    February 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    This article is nearly a reason to ‘unfollow’ WUWT. I was really expecting to read that they had given money to him directly – not that they had simply sponsored a conference he organised. You’re really scraping the barrel with this. (I wonder if you will publish this comment?).

    You don’t really follow this site do you! The moderators here pretty much let any inane comment through without change. Unless you get into personal attacks or profanity and stay on the topic at hand (and that one gets a great deal of leniency) your comments WILL be posted. It isn’t Anthony Watts and company’s job to keep you from embarrassing yourself. Though your comment indicates you should probably hire a sanity checker to keep you from projecting what happens at many warmist sites onto our host.

    I have always loved the folks who write into the letters to the editor column complaining about some article or something claiming they are “canceling my subscription” only to back the next month complaining that some story was unfair and they are “canceling my subscription!”

  31. pokerguy says:
    February 4, 2013 at 5:51 pm
    “OK, not that I’m looking to give Pachauri any cover here, but moquauvin is correct. It’s as ludicrous as accusing Joe Bast of being in some corporation’s pocket because they sponsored one of Heartland’s ICCC’s. I do not claim this tempest in a teapot otherwise suggests Pachauri is as pure as the driven snow, but you can’t hang him on this paltry evidence. Sorry.”

    I’m one of the 2 or 3 who criticized this post as misleading. However, you go too far in the opposite direction in my view. The IPCC is supposed the be above reproach…the gold standard, remember? It’s laughable and pathetic and damning that they’re taking money from groups that have an extreme interest in defending the (it’s always worse than we though) “consensus.”

    You conflate too many elements here. Focus on what’s actually in the story.
    1. Pachuri is the Director General of TERI.
    2. TERI organizes a conference.
    3. The conference has a number of corporate sponsors.
    4. Ergo, Pachauri is lining his pockets. (?????????)

    Sorry, 4. does not flow from 1., 2., and 3. Note that I do not claim/assert.believe it isn’t happening, just that this particular story doesn’t provide even the faintest hint of a shred of proof.

    This story is not really about the IPCC since the IPCC did not sponsor the conference. Considering the number of contributors to the IPCC reports, under your theory of responsibility, there is nothing from wild-eyed misanthropism (kill-the humans-now) to utter repudiation of CAGW that can’t be laid at the feet of the IPCC. This sort of hyperbole does not advance the debate in any way.

  32. The World Wildlife Fund? Obviously they care about wild animals and the destruction of their niches mainly due to human encroachments but do they think that Gore or the IPCC can directly stop human encroachment on wild life sanctuaries or claim some funding from the climate change fund. Pachauri, I can’t stand the fellow.

  33. “Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers”

    For those defending Pachauri, how can the chairman of the IPCC also be director of an organization that received major (unbalanced) funding from an activist group?

    Imagine if Richard Windsor (AKA Lisa Jackson) was the managing director of an organization called FFF.org (Fossil Fuels Forever), and BP was a major sponsor? How would people view that.

    And regarding the money trail, someone astutely pointed out that Al Gore’s NonProf funneled money to his sister’s NonProf in the form of a forgivable loan.

    Like still waters, the corruption in Climate Religion runs deeps.

  34. :D
    His hair makes him such a succulent sniper’s target. Do not tell him to get a hair cut !

    Very easy Head Kill this Bambi. 8

    XD

    Fool !

    PS. And a good dead fool at that … should Fate intervene.

  35. I’m a bit surprised Mr. Pachauri is still heading that show. Someone ought have alerted someone, but perhaps they are all too far gone.

    Environmentalism has been fouled, soiled, and horribly corrupted by the individuals who have barged into the workings of groups that once had some class. Sadly, the “F” in WWF now stands for “fraud.”

  36. @oldseadog;

    If patchy wants to stand in a bight…. it’s his leg and his choice. But it won’t be pretty… thats for sure.

  37. ‘There should be no reason for anyone to trust Mr. Pachauri again,’

    Sorry but when was there a reason to trust Mr Pahauri ?

  38. Sorry, but where is a problem?
    It is a conference and sponsors are welcome. What is wrong with WWF?
    It is perfectly ok when industries support science.

  39. Non-sense, with many other organisations, public and privtae, WWF supported a dubious conference on that dreaded subject ‘sustainability’ ( a tool for engineering consensus?) – that is to direct money towards ‘green’ and bureaucratic coffers, both public and private. This conference system pays many do-gooders of the green variety and their academic beneficiaries fares and sustenance. All very normal and nothing to blame Pachauri for, certainly no bombshell but common practice. Don’t go over the top, BMW also contributed, Donna and Anthony, don’t overdo it stick to science critique and leave personalities.alone. Love Sonja

  40. No, Jimbo, it isn’t the IPCFT – it definitely is still the IPCC…
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cr@p………

  41. This is the kind of headline/story that reduces the creditability of WUWT overall. WWF was one of many sponsors of the event. So what? It is not like their sponsorship skewed the event any more than BMW did it? This is a non story not worthy of being pushed imo.

  42. Add me to the list of people who do not see a bombshell or even a smoking gun here. The relationship between TERI and IPCC may be too cozy for a supposedly objective chairman of a supposedly objective scientific body, but I can’t equate that with Pachauri lining his personal pockets from WWF coffers.

  43. Add me to the minority position. If someone wants to hold a conference on sustainability, the WWF certainly has the funds and interest to support it. And maybe give some of the execs a nice boondoggle to India for a while.

    Me too. This is a silly article and shows absolutely no evidence of unethical behavior on Pachauri’s part as far as this event is concerned. I thought I was going to read about evidence that the WWF had been paying him money under the table or something, not that the WWF was one of many sponsors to a conference that is held every year and that he attended. The WWF is concerned about preserving the world’s species, primarily against habitat encroachment and overharvesting by humans. They are not themselves “participants” in the CAGW theory — they simply accept that theory as being “proven science” and then act according to their charter on the basis of that information, which is difficult to fault. If the CAGW theory is falsified, or ameliorated into non-C AGW, one would expect that they would return to activities that targeted other proximate threats to wildlife populations.

    In India there are many, from the poaching of a gradually shrinking pool of moderately rare species to the steady reduction of habitat as India’s population and wealth remorselessly increases. There is a strong conservation movement in India, one that I applaud (having lived there). Its jungles and forests are a magnificant global treasure, but they are very much at risk not from global warming or “climate change”, but from encroaching human populations, pollution, poaching, habitat restriction.

    India is also susceptible to drought. Indeed, drought is historically one of the major killers in India, which relies on the monsoon for a great deal of its annual water. Some historic droughts have had death tolls in the millions, IIRC. There is, as has often been pointed out, no evidence that global warming is associated with an increase in the number or severity of droughts (or monsoons, or tropical storms, or …fill in your own favorite “extreme” weather) but again, the public mind listens to Al Gore, not the actual climate scientists that point out this lack of evidence. If the WWF officially opposes CAGW and hence CO_2 production, it may indicate a moderate lack of good judgement but nothing worse, and nothing that isn’t enormously commonplace at this point.

    We are very fortunate in that the planet has stubbornly refused to warm for 15 years or so since the 1997-1998 super El Nino. Not because it was suffering any damage from the warming — I don’t think that there is any demonstrable damage resolvable from the natural noise in human disaster — but because it has started people thinking once again, has created a climate of doubt (so to speak) about the horrific scenarios that have been consistently painted by the CAGW extremists. It has caused a fair number of climate scientists — who are, for the most part, honest and just trying to do their best — to reconsider their own belief in the extreme values of climate sensitivity that have been bandied about for the last fifteen years (precisely corresponding with the flat temperature period).

    This is an open question, and the Earth has reminded us of that. If the Earth stubbornly refuses to warm for another decade, or worse (for the CAGW folks) if it actually cools on a sustained basis for a few decades, then nearly everybody will reconsider their position in light of the new data. OTOH, if it spikes up in temperature to a new plateau 0.2 or 0.3 above its current temperature, well, one would hope that even people on this list would be equally open minded and willing to change their minds given new evidence. My own position is and will continue to be until there is enough evidence to change it that we don’t have any good idea of what the climate will do or model for predicting its changes, yet, nor do we have anywhere near enough reliable data to be able to build a reliable model.

    There the self-correcting nature of science comes into play. Even if there have been thumbs on the GISS global surface temperature scales (as one might reasonably conclude from a look at the bias in the corrections) there are now too many sources of data that one cannot just “adjust” into showing a warming trend where the instruments themselves do not or amplfiying any trend that is there. Indeed, the longer the Earth holds at its current temperature, the more glaring any attempt to warm it by adjustment would be — there is already too great a disparity between the satellite temperatures and the surface temperatures. At this point, with the satellites, any warming observed has to be real and sustained to matter, and nobody really knows what we are going to observe over the next decade. I think a lot of climate scientists now “get” this.

    rgb

  44. As the Tata Group’s original UN implant, “Railroad Bill” Pachauri has long abused his IPCC responsibilities in every context possible. Glacier-gate contretemps, personal scandals involving authorship of dime-store pornography on UN time, should long since have mandated any self-respecting official’s resignation in disgrace. But not Pachauri, in Ban Ki-moon’s venue… let’s face it, these oinkers are crooks and liars to a man. The sooner such kakistocratic rentiers follow Wilson’s late, unlamented League, the better.

  45. Donna says, “That’s right, folks. The chairman of the IPCC is cashing cheques issued by the WWF.”

    Blatant conflict of interest!

    …which is the point of the article, and the point of what I plainly see as the ‘metaphorical’ final sentence. I don’t see how anyone can read the entire short piece and infer that Donna is accusing Pachauri of lining his own personal pockets. Ridiculous. Donna is fairly – and clearly – calling him out on being a two-faced scoundrel.

  46. “There should be no reason for anyone to trust Mr. Pachauri again, as he has been compromised by activism.”

    No. He’s been compromised by graft. Or so it would appear.

  47. I also believe this is a complete non-story – the wretched WWF can sponsor whatever they like.
    However, what this story has done is cheer me up and has once again confirmed my faith in sceptics. Let me do my best to explain why:
    If this was a story posted on SkS or the Rommulan’s blog about a sceptic conference being sponsored by ‘big oil’, the warmists would be screaming blue-murder and calling for the death penalty for all of the conference attendees. On WUWT however, rational people have the courage of their convictions to affirm that the story is a non-event. i.e. not go into spittle-flecked irrational rage like the warmists do.
    Sceptics – we’re a mild-mannered and rational bunch, thankfully :)

  48. I’ve read the above comments with interest. My response to some of the concerns raised appears here:

    Why Taking WWF Money Matters

    The connections evident to me, the author of an entire book about the IPCC, are not always evident to others. As a writer I try to balance an awareness of that fact with respect for my regular readers. Me repeating the same data points over and over makes for tedious (and lengthy) reading.

    In 2010, the InterAcademy Council report said that Pachauri was the “the leader and the face” of the IPCC, which he has chaired since 2002. If that is the case, he is equally “the leader and the face” of the institute called TERI, of which he has been the chief executive for more than three decades.

    Mere months before the release of Part One of the IPCC’s brand new report, an institute run by its chairman is found to be funding that institute’s activities with activist money.

    Respectfully, that is an important piece of news.

  49. Donna Laframboise says:
    February 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    [ . . . ]

    In 2010, the InterAcademy Council report said that Pachauri was the “the leader and the face” of the IPCC, which he has chaired since 2002. If that is the case, he is equally “the leader and the face” of the institute called TERI, of which he has been the chief executive for more than three decades.
    Mere months before the release of Part One of the IPCC’s brand new report, an institute run by its chairman is found to be funding that institute’s activities with activist money.

    [ . . . ]

    - – - – - – - – -

    Donna Laframboise,

    It is valuable to the public for you to publically document by your blog post that Pachauri is involved with WWF environmental activists via his association with TERI. Thank you. By your post I agree that there is sufficient evidence of that. And of course we know WWF has directly infiltrated a significant portion of the IPCC as you have shown in your book ‘The Delinquent …. ‘. The case against Pachauri being fit for IPCC leadership from those two aspects, taken together, is good. He should stand down on that basis.

    The aspect of the post that I thought was ill founded was the implication of Pachauri being paid directly by WWF without any evidence in the post of that. It did not seem warranted.

    John

Comments are closed.