Saturday satire – "Guilty!" cartoon by Josh

Josh writes: So Patchy has been found guilty by an internal review – what next?

Guilty_scr

Cartoons by Josh

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “Saturday satire – "Guilty!" cartoon by Josh

    • I suspect that was a keyboard slip but no, there’s nothing funny about the continued funding of someone who has broken a lot of rules, including sexual harassment. There is some black humour in seeing the person the IPCC was warned was unsavoury falling foul of his horrible nature. And there’s happiness that India is changing such that such a powerful person can now face the consequences of their vile behaviour.

      • I believe that the definitive statement on this whole Pachauri affair can be found at the HotWhopper blog. And, of course, I’m talkin’ about HW’s blog-post “Ice-Ages, Witches, and Magic…”, dtd May 28, 2015, where an appended comment, authored by a certain improbable gent, who styles himself “Bert from Eltham”, brilliantly assesses the sensitive and complex character of the ramifications at issue in the fraught confluence of human-sexuality and Gaia-hustle, eco-con scare-mongering:
        “It is a bit like Japanese porn where the genitals are pixilated. I just do not understand the point of their porn. Violence is very real and graphic in their movies to the point I find it very disturbing. Bert”
        And if anyone can determine the antecedent to the “It” pronoun, that begins Bert’s delicious, befuddled, “gaijin”-wanker comment, then you’ve got way more G-2, than moi–by a long shot!

      • Fearing that my earlier comment might be misconstrued, especially since it appears in reference to a blog post entitled “Guilty”, I want to resolve any misunderstandings.
        It is my considered judgement that Hotwhopper’s one truly distinguished and undeniable contribution to the “climate wars” hurly-burly is the generous offer of her web site as an accepting and sheltering blog-refuge for “Gaia’s Little Wankers”, where they can freely explore their often misunderstood, warm, and life-affirming recreational outlet, that a cruelly-bigoted society chooses to stigmatize as a “filthy habit”, safe from mummy’s sharp-eyed, judgmental, pee-pee slapping surveillance.
        Let’s hope my clarification, above, has now gotten everyone’s mind straight on the subject. And no!–I don’t “hate” hive-onanists. Rather, I just think they’ll find themselves to be more comfortable, among their own kind, at HotWhopper’s seedy, nerd-pit dump, and advise them accordingly.

    • Do you really think the cartoonist was trying to convey the idea that sexual harassment is funny, or was that comment a straw man argument and attempt to censor political satire?

    • Kit Carruthers
      May 30, 2015 at 8:46 am
      “Funding someone guilty of sexual harassment is funny?”
      Yes. It’s a concept called Schadenfreude. We love it when elite crooks get their payback. Dominik Strauss Kahn anyone? What’s surprising is these days when a member of the elite is NOT like that.

    • It is a cartoon – that it should be funny on top of that is something you added out of your own accord…

    • Since when is political cartooning exclusively funny? Lame attempt at shouting down speech, a leftist/feminist tactic.
      Josh… Keep up the ridicule, funny, shocking, and political incorrect as you see fit. Don’t listen to free speech restricting whiners.

      • BTW: It was only the “Peace Nobel Prize” which can’t be taken seriously anymore, since half of the recent laureates merely got it for their political correctness and mainstreaming (like Obama, the European Union, the IPCC and Al Gore).
        So, isn’t that fishy? There was no Physics Nobel Prize for the most “settled science” there is on this planet yet !? How can this be, given that this “settled science” shall do nothing less than saving mankind from the runaway global warming hell of the most evil devil of our time, that is to say, poor innocent plant-food CO2 ???… 😉

      • Wait, I thought it was won by Michael Mann. He said so in his court filings. Patchy even gave him a certificate, that he could put on his refrigerator,.saying so.

      • “The Nobel [Peace] prize was awarded to the IPCC not to any individual including ‘Patchy’.”
        But Patchy was the one at the ceremony who accepted it.

  1. He will go back to the old caboose.
    He will make tracks.
    He will take the line of least resistance.
    He will hear that lonesome whistle blow.

    • It’s all about power and abuse of power. So it says something about his behaviour in general and about his role at the IPCC in particular. He thinks he is god’s gift to mankind. He isn’t.

    • Public figures are fair game, at least that is the way the left explains it. Something about Caesar’s wife.

    • He has no science research; he presents the research of others. The only thing he has to sell his SELECTION of research is his credibility. This lamentable episode and his denial of it make his credibility indefensible. You can consider it an ad hominem attack if you wish (this ‘attack’ is more of a self-inflicted wound in my book), but it makes his views on CAGW completely irrelevant to the debate, just as Gore has made himself irrelevant by his self-serving actions.

    • Bloke,
      It’s a pretty bland ale they’re serving in your pub if every witty put-down of an adversary is deemed a logical fallacy.
      What if it were something worse than tyrannizing a subordinate? Still no derision allowed?

      • Personally I found the cartoon amusing, as it’s always funny to see those with an over-inflated ego fall flat on their face. I just think that the next time we get het up about a skeptic being subjected to Ad Hominem attack, we’ll be on shakier ground.

    • BDTP
      In answer to your question, I’ll repeat what I said at the time these accusations surfaced. The attempt to escape them by alleging his computer had been hacked added another dimension to the story – ie his willingness to lie in order to further his interests. Is this not relevant to his tenure at the IPCC? Am I being silly in wondering whether this recent lie is the only one?

    • This post is not a logical argument. No one is saying, “Pachauri is a skuzzball, therefore his statements about (say) melting glaciers must be wrong,” The post states merely states a fact and poses a question: “So Patchy has been found guilty by an internal review – what next?” Your mention of ad hominems is unwarranted.

  2. This has nothing to do with the climate and very little to do with politics.
    My thoughts are with the victim. I hope she is protected from retribution and can move on with her life.

    • This has everything to do with respectability and truthfulness.
      The head of the IPCC is neither truthful nor respectable. Instead he is one of the more despicable predators on this earth.
      Pachuari’s attempts at defense cement Pachauri’s character as considering lesser people and especially women as so far beneath him that they’re treated as fast food refuse.
      How does one trust an organization or that organization’s findings when it has been governed for so long by an untrustworthy creep.
      It isn’t just one victim; Pachauri has left a trail of victims along with a cadre of henchmen willing to assist him. IPCC and Teri both need in depth investigations.

    • MCourtney
      May 30, 2015 at 10:36 am

      […] I hope she is protected from retribution […]

      Nail, head, hammer.
      If we see any retribution, then nothing has really changed.

      • So suppose he was a good guy, which he was not, and suppose she was a bad girl, which we know too little about. Suppose he was falsely accused – would his fate be any different?
        The only good policy for any man in any mixed team is to keep distance. Bright or dumb, nice or hideous – just keep your fingers off women. And a healthy length of distance.

    • I think it’s the problem with people In power who seek to coerce others when it suits their morality. This fellow spent a lot of time wagging his finger at others. It was my problem with Bill Clinton, that he felt justified to lie his ass off if it suited him, but spent a fair amount of time degrading and lecturing many people when he thought he’d gain votes and approval.

    • MCourtney,
      The reason that this Pachauri thing is a scandal is precisely because we, as a (nearly) global community find the imputed behaviour of this man odious. Not just in this case but whenever people abuse their power like this.
      We all sympathize with all victims in all such instances; and there are very many around the world at any time, so our sympathy is a matter of principle, not of personal specificity.
      The reason that you and I are aware of this woman’s misfortune is her connection to the broader issue of climate and politics.

    • It is at least as interesting to many skeptics as the beliefs in grand fossil fuel conspiracies are to the climate concerned, with the important distinction that the former head of the IPCC is actually guilty of something. I hope the victim does well and is permitted to get on with her life as well.

    • All this information about corruption makes we wonder about the awarding of the Olympic Games.

      • Why wonder?
        In the Centenary anniversary year of the Modern Olympics there was an obvious favourite.
        But Athens lost.
        It got it four years later so it didn’t lose on practical grounds.
        But maybe I’m merely maligning the winner.
        Maybe Atlanta (home of IOC main sponsor Coca Cola) has a more illustrious history and culture than Athens?

      • Mcourtney:
        Palms were definitely greased in the awarding of the 1996 Olympics to Atlanta, but that hardly sets a precedent. Back to Pachauri: now that he’s no longer heading up the IPCC perhaps we will find him helping repair the reputation of FIFA? Or given his predilections regarding young women, perhaps his natural home is the Clinton Foundation.

  3. I do believe Josh’s cartoon eludes to the possibility that our friend my be guilty of breaking laws that lined his pockets.
    Often people who’s behavior is unsavory in one aspect often isn’t in others.
    Not necessarily so, I know. But if I were a betting man……

  4. Pachauri: Surely, a model of probity and sanctity – that (also) failed to match reality.

  5. Looks like Fagin, acts like Fagin, how any intelligent person could have ever trusted someone like this amazes me. He makes Hitler look good.

  6. The fun part is to come , the rewriting of IPCC history so this once heavily promoted ‘hero’ now becomes ‘unimportant ‘ and ‘just another employee ‘
    For man who had the world leaders numbers on speed dial that is going to hurt.

  7. What’s next is probably nothing will happen given the country and their history. He’s already out of his IPCC position so that will probably be counted as his punishment. Misogyny is still accepted in many corners of the earth. Even the IPCC should be free of guilt by association.

  8. I think that Josh is really easy on old Pachy. He is much better looking in Josh’s drawings than he is in the photos.

  9. The real question should now be “how many of the people he has selected were either there because he wished to exploit them and knew they would be suitably rewarded for obedience and favours of all varieties or were just as immoral and dishonest as he was so he could readily relate to them.”

  10. I take it the following was a typcial question asked by those females interviewed for a job at TERI
    ‘Is that a hockey stick in your pants or are you just pleased to see me ? ‘

  11. midlife crisis following nobel price – rare.
    short article in a respected magacine, the interviewer was aghasted of Pachauris charms: typical soziopathic.
    That’s what IPCC needs / wants?
    A self declared threat to our livestyle, a threat to the developing world.
    Father forgive them, soziopaths don’t know what they are doing.
    Regards – Hans

    • Not so much that they don’t know what they’re doing as that they don’t care.

  12. It seems to me the so-called crime of sexual harassment is nothing but politically-correct bunkum. (Yes, the real thing exists and shouldn’t happen, but in today’s world there’s no way to tell that from the much broader definition used in policies and laws, which effectively requires men to be mind readers.) Thus, I don’t think we are adding anything to our own credibility by trumpeting a conviction for SH, no matter how much we hate the convicted person.

Comments are closed.