Accused of sexual harassment crimes, former IPCC head Pachauri claims: "I was set up"


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t James Delingpole – Disgraced former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri has struck back at accusations he has been , with claims that he was set up by his opponents.

According to The Guardian;

Faced with prison, ruin and disgrace when his case comes before the Delhi courts next month, Pachauri has resigned from the IPCC and stepped back from Teri, the huge energy research institute that he founded and which has taken solar lighting to hundreds of millions of Indians. Meanwhile, his many enemies are revelling in his discomfort, his health has suffered and he has been subject to death threats and demonstrations by women’s groups.

His accuser, who cannot be named, is a science graduate. She says he besieged her with offensive messages, emails and texts in the 16 months she spent working with him. In February 2015, she gave police a cache of several thousand electronic messages as evidence.

She says she rejected Pachauri’s “carnal and perverted” advances. “On many occasions, Dr Pachauri forcibly grabbed my body, hugged me, held my hands, kissed me and touched my body in an inappropriate manner,” she told police.

Until now, Pachauri has said nothing about the case beyond denying all the charges, and claiming that his emails and computers had been hacked or misused. Now, however, in a series of emails with the Observer and in one meeting in London, he claims that his accuser was acting for money, and was probably set up to trap him by persons unknown.

He claims that she had access to all his five email accounts, and to his electronic files which included personal correspondence and many poems that he had written over the years.

“What is disturbing [is] that right from the first day over a period of about 16 months she was creating and assembling an archive of messages, which to anyone would seem very unusual. As far as I know, the emails, text messages etc that she collected were personal, semi-personal and only in a few cases official,” he says.

He claims it would have been easy for someone to have assumed his identity and sent messages seemingly from him to her, without his knowledge.

Read more:

In my opinion Pachauri’s defence is implausible. Quite apart from the confused nature of Pachauri’s claim, in which he appears to suggest he was entrapped and hacked at the same time (so which perverted messages were sent by Pachauri, as part of the “entrapment” process, and which messages were sent by hackers?), it simply seems implausible that the alleged victim received perverted sexual messages over a period of 16 months, without mentioning it to someone.

If you received suggestive, perverted messages from a friend or colleague, messages which seemed completely out of character, surely the first thing you would do is tell your friend or colleague that something was wrong. At the very least you would ask them to stop, or if it seemed utterly implausible that they were sending such messages, you would tell them their account had been hacked.

If your polite request to stop making lewd suggestions was rebuffed, and you were worried about your job and reputation, then the obvious next step would be to collect evidence that you were the victim of sexual harassment – especially if the perpetrator was an authority figure. So in my view there is nothing odd about the fact that the alleged victim has a large record of messages received from Pachauri, which she submitted to the police, when her alleged situation finally became unbearable.

This is not the first time Climate Alarmists have attempted to deflect criticism of their conduct with wild conspiracy theories. Perhaps conspiracist ideation is what climate alarmists do, when they are caught with their pants down, metaphorically or otherwise, when there is no reasonable defence for their actions.

If you have any lingering doubts about who the victim in this case is, consider the credibility destroying gaffs Pachauri has made over the years, such as his ridiculous melting Himalayan glacier claim. Pachauri was far more valuable to skeptics as the bungling Chairman of the IPCC, than he will be as a forgotten nobody. His entertaining IPCC clown show will be missed.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Westhaver
March 30, 2016 7:39 pm

Yeah right. Funny thing about being set-up…you gotta be there doing stuff…set-up-able stuff to get set up. perv hack writer and UN money scammer.

Paul Westhaver
March 30, 2016 7:40 pm

That was 7:39 PST.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 31, 2016 4:56 am

Not PDT?

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Slywolfe
March 31, 2016 7:43 am


March 30, 2016 7:49 pm

Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes agrees—whilst stopping short of the need to be held—and says Pachauri’s jokes acknowledge an important social reality, like all the best comedy. “Do you really think twenty-something homewreckers don’t exist in science? Is science special? Don’t be naïve,” she admonished me.
“There are sluts in every field of human endeavour. Refusing to talk about them and their push-up bras is not going to make the problem go away.
“A common strategy employed is to gently push their shoulders back a few inches,” Oreskes noted—”an action that serves to lift their breasts even higher. Men are excited by the sight of their heaving breasts as they breathe in and out deeply.
“What honest scientist could resist such distractions? Even—or especially—if he was married to prominent Delhi physician Saroj Pachauri?
“As a sexy, sexual woman with one foot in the scientific world myself, I go out of my way never to distract real scientists from their work. But do you think for a second that these young bimbos make the same effort? You must be kidding.”
Climate anthropologist and feminist Greg Laden, PhD, has read over a year’s worth of Dr Pachauri’s SMS and WhatsApp correspondence with a young woman on his staff—the raw material from which the climate chief reportedly drew his hilarious observations.
Laden said the documents tell the story of a 29-year-old girl who wages “a relentless and persistent campaign against [her employer’s] love,” as Pachauri himself puts it at one point.
“It’s almost incredible the way she refuses to take a hint [and submit to his overtures],” explained Laden. “This stuff goes on for a year and a quarter!”
One episode was especially resonant.
“At one point Pachauri has to spend 3 months pestering the girl to forgive him for stalking her. It gets ridiculous in the end—he’s forced to text her at 3 or 4 a.m. just to get her attention.”
This kind of slow-drip emotional torture is more common than most people realize, Laden said.
“Up to 1% of employees in the workforce are estimated to be psychopaths.
“These ‘workers from hell’ think nothing of subjecting their bosses to years of anguish, as Dr Pachauri has found out the hard way. And for their elderly victims, the effects can be just as scarring as [those of] domestic violence.”
Lending support to Laden’s analysis are Pachauri’s descriptions of the young researcher as “inconsistently cold,” “obstinate and cold,” and having “a frozen heart.”
Remoteness and withdrawal are textbook weapons of emotional abusers, noted Laden.
The girl also shows the narcissism pathognomonic of psychopathy, he said, pointing to an official police report in which she has the chutzpah to complain that:
Due to my elevated levels of stress, I always feel panicky and tense, and feel like throwing up… I have immense stress and panic and suffer frequent nightmares… I get frequent panic attacks…
Laden finds the girl’s lack of empathy blood-chilling. “This Jane Doe—or ‘Meri Jaan,’ to use the Hindi—shows classic obliviousness to the agony she herself has just spent fifteen months putting Dr Pachauri through, day in and day out, by denying him so much as a kiss or any other token of tenderness.”
Psychological climatism: Poe’s law in action?
I don’t even know if climatenuremberg is a real blog or The Onion of the warmists. Anyway it’s pretty crazy.

John Robertson
Reply to  simple-touriste
March 30, 2016 7:59 pm

Oh Brad is real alright, just very few can recognize written satire anymore.
He does Patchy up rather nicely as you noted.
The “I was framed”
“Look what you made me do”, defence is a natural for most serial liars .
The “Science Communicators” of Team IPCC ™ resort to projecting their sins upon any who question them as a matter of course.
I miss the surreal insanity of The Shaggy One as head of the IPCC, right now I cannot even remember the name of whoever replaced him.

Reply to  John Robertson
March 31, 2016 9:30 am

I prefer to think Patchy was “railroaded.”

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 1:37 am

Unbelievable, bastions from the climate change faction of Political Correctness abandon their purported politically correct views to support one of their troughers of the public purse.
Even Bob Dylan is getting behind Pachauri.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muizenberg
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
March 31, 2016 2:00 pm

It is interesting that defense of Mr P is that someone fiddled the system to set up the outcome they wanted, despite the true facts of the matter.
It sounds a heck of a lot like the CO2 alarmist crowd when they go temperature-mapping or sea level-measuring. The Schadenfreude business will set upon this classic case of irony with glee.
Mr P is claiming that she is faking the message of alarm! You just can’t make this stuff up.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
April 1, 2016 12:49 pm

“Even Bob Dylan is getting behind Pachauri.”

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 7:00 am

Greg Laden was also a defender of Greitz (sp?) If I recall correctly. The warmists take care of their own.

Reply to  JimB
March 31, 2016 3:44 pm

“Greg Laden was also a defender of Greitz”
You can make Greitz a symbol in the universe of climatists, then use the rule of generalization (introduction rule of ∀), and you get:
∀ x, climatist(x) => (Greg Laden is a defender of x)

March 30, 2016 7:50 pm

I remember when Pachauri stated that the material in IPCC AR’s were all peer-reviewed. The IPCC has since admitted and allows grey material. Science at its best.

March 30, 2016 8:05 pm

As a sexy, sexual woman with one foot in the scientific world myself, ORESKY???? . When I read that I just about pee’d myself, “One foot in the scientific world”? Bot oh boy I doubt she has a dead toe nail in the “scientific” world.

Reply to  asybot
March 30, 2016 8:16 pm

“As a sexy, sexual woman with one foot in the scientific world myself, ORESKY????”
Yes! And she even gets statistics, well from a parallel universe:

We’ve all heard the slogan “correlation is not causation,” but that’s a misleading way to think about the issue. It would be better to say that correlation is not necessarily causation, because we need to rule out the possibility that we are just observing a coincidence. Typically, scientists apply a 95 percent confidence limit, meaning that they will accept a causal claim only if they can show that the odds of the relationship’s occurring by chance are no more than one in 20. But it also means that if there’s more than even a scant 5 percent possibility that an event occurred by chance, scientists will reject the causal claim. It’s like not gambling in Las Vegas even though you had a nearly 95 percent chance of winning.

(etc. I spare you the rest)
Poe’s law strikes, again.

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 7:08 am

Greg Laden was also a defender of Greitz (sp?) If I recall correctly. The warmists take care of their own.

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 7:08 am

Also: Brock’s Law. Warmists will self-parodiy if given enough time.

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 7:09 am

Parody, dammit.

Reply to  asybot
March 31, 2016 4:06 am

yeah..spilt my coffee, anything LESS sexy im pressed to find..mrs O maybe?
in science by a foot?
my foot would be on her butt pushing her OUT that door.

Reply to  asybot
March 31, 2016 9:32 am

The “sexy” part is equally eye-brow raising.

Reply to  asybot
March 31, 2016 9:32 am

bot, I had the same reaction.

Reply to  asybot
March 31, 2016 10:54 pm

Naomi is sexy in an Anthony Weiner kind of way. I wonder if they’re related?

March 30, 2016 8:15 pm

I will shamelessly steal a few choice quotes from simple-touriste above.

Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes agrees
“As a sexy, sexual woman with one foot in the scientific world myself”,,5719776_4,00.jpg
Speechless. I think I best let it go without comment anyway.

Reply to  TonyL
March 30, 2016 8:22 pm

Yet more Poe’s law:

Prominent thinker Naomi Oreskes has come to the defence of Rajendra Pachauri, describing the embattled climate guru as a “consummate gentleman” who never cupped her tits, forcibly tongued her or groped any part of her ass in an eight-year-plus collaboration on environmental policy.
“I’ve held my tongue too long. People needed to hear that,” she said this morning of the impromptu two-hour digression.
Oreskes and her co-author Erik M. Conway will always be associated in the popular mind with the Byzantine, dystopian—and often laugh-out-loud silly—alternate world imagined in their genre-defining cli-fi novel, The Merchants of Doubt.
In the real universe, though, it’s her impeccable credentials as a feminist that make Professor Oreskes’ vote of confidence such a gift to Pachauri’s cause, say observers of the so-called “TataGate” scandal that has India’s gossipy capital all atwitter.
Not that Oreskes herself is any stranger to workplace fondling. As she reminded the students, faculty and science press gathered in IU’s historic Franklin Hall, she was once a freshly-minted geologist in the lawless, testosterone-drunk mines beneath Western Australia. That’s where she learned “what men do with their hands when they can’t see you [and you can’t see them].”
When she finally returned to the Earth’s surface five years later, two things had changed, perhaps forever: “the climate, and my faith in the male capacity for self-control.”
Oreskes’ eyes had barely readjusted to sunlight, however, when a colleague introduced her to Rajendra Pachauri, a man she quickly likened to “an atmospheric faith-healer in his charismatic and erotic prime.” But if she was worried about becoming a mere lust object, she needn’t have been. Pachauri—who by chance had forgotten his wedding ring—barely looked twice at the chalk-white, half-blind rock geek all day.
“I figured he was gay,” shrugged Oreskes, in one of the evening’s best lines.
Nonetheless, their first meeting was the start of a partnership she described as “long, fruitful and completely asexual.”

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 7:12 am

Wow. I have no doubts that sex was never involved. Just look at that visage.

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 3:01 pm

She complained about what happened in the dark mines beneath Western Australia. That’s where she learned “what men do with their hands when they can’t see you”
If they had seen thiscomment image?w=700
the men would be yearning for a kangaroo or even a duck billed platypus !!

Reply to  TonyL
March 30, 2016 8:23 pm
Reply to  simple-touriste
March 30, 2016 8:26 pm

“A single complaint—to paraphrase Sanjay—belongs in the dustbin,” she quipped. “But more than one? With the same elements, the same accusations… the same body parts, in many cases? Well, we have a saying in the science world: two is a coincidence; three is a modus operandi.”
The conclusion was inescapable, said Oreskes, who also lectures in logic. “These young [women] were coached.”
While taking no pleasure in the serious nature of the alleged crimes, Oreskes admitted to “taking some pleasure” in this new and compelling evidence of the existence of a denier playbook, seeing it as the clearest vindication of the ‘merchants of doubt’ hypothesis to date.

You couldn’t make this up. She lectures in LOGIC.
The same death threats, the same beatings…
So obviously all these accusations against mafia hitmen are phony!

John Robertson
Reply to  simple-touriste
March 30, 2016 8:37 pm

Have a care, what is attributed to the Lovely lady of the Cult ,may not be her words.
However the mocking is very well done.

Reply to  John Robertson
March 30, 2016 9:09 pm

yes and maybe these claims are not her either:
– p<0.05 proves causation
– not finding a statistically significant effect during stat analysis when such physical effect exists is a "type II error"
p<0.05 means you have less than 5% chance of being wrong
– 4Be is a heavy metal (she probably says that because it’s toxic)
– reactive oxygen species are the same thing as radioactive isotopes of oxygen
– the many different regulatory acceptable industrial radiation doses (not counting natural or medical exposure) are based on the assumption that low doses are harmless below the level defined by the regulation

(too many ridiculous claims to list)

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 30, 2016 9:35 pm

“4Be is a heavy metal”
I meant Be-9.
Displayed as
in the periodic table.
And yes, isolated errors can happen, and one error could be waved away. There are just too much errors in her book.

James Fosser
Reply to  TonyL
March 31, 2016 1:34 am

I first looked at her picture and thought it was a man (and not a handsome one at that ) and then noticed the name!

March 30, 2016 8:35 pm

dean….thanx for the great laffer at 11:35 PM

March 30, 2016 8:36 pm

The more I google Naomi and Pachauri, the sicker I get.
I don’t think I am easily impressed (I can handle many discourses), but I think it may be too much “feminist”(*) for me.
Does WUWT sell vomit bags?
(*) the new sort of “feminism”, “progressive” (in the modern sense, ie regressive and fascinated by primitivism) and “liberal” (in the modern sense, ie illiberal) and accusing victims

March 30, 2016 9:26 pm

30 Mar: HuffPo India: Idrani Basu: 9 Things The Guardian Neglected In Its Piece On Rajendra Pachauri
Here are 9 relevant issues that I wish The Guardian had discussed…READ ON
(Disclaimer: HuffPost India is published in association with The Times of India Group, which also publishes The Economic Times)

Reply to  pat
March 30, 2016 9:51 pm

Pirated emails? (for one year?) Then what, pirated hands?
Do you think Pachauri is preparing the “I’m crazy and not responsible” defense?
’cause that’s what it looks like!

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 2:49 pm

The “no other options” defense.

Reply to  simple-touriste
March 31, 2016 4:19 pm

What about pirated (hockey) stick?

Rick Bradford
March 30, 2016 9:56 pm

In a famous sex-related trial in the UK some years back, a powerful man (Lord Astor) attempted to browbeat a powerless female victim.
Astor’s counsel: “Don’t you know that Lord Astor has denied your allegation?”
Young lady: “Well (giggle) he would, wouldn’t he?”

Nigel S
Reply to  Rick Bradford
March 31, 2016 1:43 am

Ah yes, the lovely Mandy Rice-Davies making the most of her minor role in the Profumo scandal. It was her famous response to counsel in Stephen Ward’s trial. I miss the 60s.
‘Ward, as it transpired, committed suicide before sentence was passed, but the real star of the show was Mandy Rice-Davies. Her pert reply to counsel when told that another participant in the drama, Lord Astor, had denied having slept with her — “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?” — entered the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and has been much plagiarised ever since.’
From her obituary in The Telegraph;

Bob in Castlemaine
March 30, 2016 10:08 pm

So, let me get this right, Pachauri claims he’s been railroaded?

Reply to  Bob in Castlemaine
March 31, 2016 9:34 am

Good one.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muizenberg
Reply to  Bob in Castlemaine
March 31, 2016 2:18 pm

Pachauri claims she has faked all the data that points to him and that the faked data is promoting unjustified alarm in the minds of the police and public.

March 30, 2016 10:54 pm

It’s always the women’s fault 97 percent of the time , looks like this is one of the Bill Cosby times though.

Reply to  Robert
March 30, 2016 11:06 pm

Neofeminism =
97 % of men are pigs and possible predators
97 % women who accuse the good men (who fight to the Cause) must wear push-ups and are probably sugar babes anyway and potential predators for old emotionally weak men
I get it now!
Pachauri must have been victim of some emo-abuser. It’s clear that he was in the weak position of being the president of the institute, with the additional weakness of seniority!
It’s clear now that Pachauri must demand compensation for the trauma for having to work with pretty ladies who can hack POP or IMAP servers as well as men’s body parts!
“Push-up culture” must have replaced “rape culture”.

Juan Slayton
March 30, 2016 11:12 pm

I can muster little sympathy for Pachauri, and I wouldn’t waste time commenting on his behavior. I don’t think the Guardian ought to be allowed to get away with this, though:
…Teri, the huge energy research institute that he founded and which has taken solar lighting to hundreds of millions of Indians.
I’ve told them a hundred thousand times not to exaggerate.

Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 31, 2016 1:14 am

…Teri, the huge energy research institute that he founded and which has taken hundreds of millions of ruppees from Indians for solar lighting .
There fixed that for you.

Reply to  Rogueelement451
March 31, 2016 2:24 pm

Well put

Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 31, 2016 3:18 am

A window (or even a hole) in a roof can be considered “solar lighting” and I wouldn’t put it past the language abusers at The Guardian to make ridiculous claims based only on political goals and pedantry.

Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 31, 2016 9:38 am

Isn’t the population of India somewhere around 700 million?
Assuming a low of 200 million from (hundreds of millions) that would mean that this company has brought solar lighting to at least a third of all Indians. Probably much more.
PS: China doesn’t make enough solar cells to provide solar light for hundreds of millions of Indians.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muizenberg
Reply to  Juan Slayton
March 31, 2016 2:19 pm

Those lanterns allowed the rural population to illuminate their poverty at night.

March 30, 2016 11:23 pm

To say something really nasty, after reading Ms. Oreskes’ eruption I can very well understand that Pachauri has not tried anything with her during their 8 blissful years of asexual comradery. Her totally unsubstantiated assumptions of how Pachauri’s victim pushes her breasts here or there are absolutely unworthy of a University Professor.

Reply to  johan
March 31, 2016 2:05 am

True. It’s seems that all good sense is abandoned when it comes to defending anything CAGW related.

March 30, 2016 11:35 pm

Un…[insert swearword of your choice here]…believable!!!

March 31, 2016 12:39 am

I believe Pachauri was set up. Set up by his own ego that is. He convinced himself he could get away with anything because he was too important to be held accountable. He probably did get away with so much for so long that he believed he was untouchable.

March 31, 2016 12:50 am

When Hilary Clinton draws up her cabinet , the men of course will disappear , so Holdren will go and there will be a vacancy for a Presidential Science advisor . My guess is that it will be dear Naomi , but given her undeniable sexiness and sensuality it might be advisable that she steers clear of the First Gentleman.

Reply to  mikewaite
March 31, 2016 1:17 am

Yeah, sexiness AND brains. Who could resist? Pass me that box of cigars.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
March 31, 2016 3:22 am

Well, Pachauri and Oreskes do make an attractive couple…

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
March 31, 2016 9:28 am

Neither of them needs a scary Halloween costume.

Reply to  mikewaite
March 31, 2016 8:39 am

“When Hilary Clinton draws up her cabinet , the men of course will disappear”
See below (and you thought Trump used bad language):

Ziiex Zeburz
March 31, 2016 12:56 am

Perhaps if this idiot Mr” Pants-on-fire” had a mirror in his house ?

March 31, 2016 1:44 am

Ahh….so somebody hacked his pants…….
Terrible thing.

Nigel S
March 31, 2016 1:47 am

‘The runaway train came down the track and she blew’.

Leo Smith
March 31, 2016 2:29 am

Has anyone else noticed that the author claims—
1/. that if anyone was receiving perverted emails they would immediately tell someone else.
2/. that if anyone was receiving perverted emails the first thing they would do is collect 16 months worth without telling anyone…
This sounds more like warmist doublethink…
Unworthy of wuwt

March 31, 2016 2:55 am

“I was set up”
What the heck else would you expect him to claim?
My long departed daddy once advised me on relationships when I was a young teen. He said that when caught naked in bed with another woman by your wife (or girlfriend) you jump up in the middle of the bed and proclaim, “HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF SUCH A FOUL DEED!”
I think he was kidding, but one never knows. After all, I have heard a lot of stuff in my lifetime that translates into: “are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?”

Joel Snider
Reply to  markstoval
March 31, 2016 11:31 am

Eddie Murphy covered this in ‘RAW’ – ‘Hey… wasn’t me.’
It’s amazing how often, and in how many situations that simple line of BS works… always assuming that the sucker wants to be convinced – that’s an important precedent.

March 31, 2016 3:11 am

“… there’s absolutely nothing funny about sexual harassment for its victims. It’s a deeply distressing experience and should be recognised and condemned for what it is – predatory sexual behaviour which should be prosecuted with the same rigour as any other crime against the person.”

James Bull
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 31, 2016 4:13 am

Here Here.
As for the why didn’t the victim say something sooner I agree with you that following your suggested response makes sense to see if someone is using their email etc.
I had an email from a friend telling me how they were in floods of tears at an airport in some far off land having had all their money and passports stolen, my first response was to call their land line and ask if all was well when told yes I asked them if they had a good flight back to which they were nonplussed till I told them of the email. When I saw them a couple of days later they told me their email supplier had sorted it all very quickly.
Old Patchy might have done better with Bart’s defence.

James Bull

Reply to  Pointman
March 31, 2016 9:49 am

I agree completely. But we can continue to ridicule Pachauri while the case makes it’s way through the court system.

March 31, 2016 5:02 am

Well, they did tell him the work involved studying models…..

March 31, 2016 5:42 am

Ah yes. The bitch set me up defense.

March 31, 2016 5:56 am

My wife says, that excuse won’t work.

Patrick MJD
March 31, 2016 6:07 am

Ah the “indian” male exit. It was her fault!

March 31, 2016 6:08 am

Poor old Rajendra Pachauri has been in trouble recently. Hope this makes him feel better.

chris moffatt
March 31, 2016 6:10 am

Come, come ladies and gentlemen; where is your sense of compassion? Dirty old men need love too, you know!

March 31, 2016 6:22 am

Change a few key words here and there and it could be an excuse for climate model failure.

March 31, 2016 6:56 am
Ryan S.
March 31, 2016 7:44 am

“You make the work environment hotter than El Nino. Do you want to adjust the shaft of the latest hockey stick?”
-Dr. Pantsdowni

G. Karst
March 31, 2016 8:19 am

His sexual crimes have not harmed, as many people, as his climate crimes. GK

March 31, 2016 8:42 am

Next thing, Old Patchy will be claiming his assistant ghost wrote his seedy book then published it without telling him

March 31, 2016 8:50 am

Pachauri is so desperate, why would anyone hatch a ludicrous 2 year plan to convince Pachauri to become an alleged pervert control freak?
So someone cunningly used a woman, who was ordered to not invite relations in order to dray in this good man who upon being faced with such womanly wiles that he was overpowered and became the sleazy corrupt pervert he did.
The script of Batman v Superman was better, and that is saying a lot!

Reply to  Mark
March 31, 2016 9:51 am

Batman v Superman made more money.

March 31, 2016 10:31 am

Patchy’s knowledge of email appears to be superficial. The transmission path, ie, the IP address or the DNS name of each server which handled that message, is contained in the header of that message. Tracing its origins is a piece of cake … Email clients never show this info, but it’s in there and visible when you look at the raw text.
The prosecutors probably know this. Patchy may learn it during his trial.

Reply to  sophocles
March 31, 2016 1:22 pm

This was pointed out last year here and elsewhere. It’s amazing that Oreskes et al. and the interviewers at the Guardian and others associated with them aren’t aware of this email characteristic. It’s something that’s been discussed in other contexts for over ten years too.

March 31, 2016 10:38 am

Dr Pachauri has clearly been set up by the Fossil fuel industry, Big Oil, the Koch brothers and a media that is hostile to Climate Science, all working together in one vast, coordinated global conspiracy.

March 31, 2016 10:42 am

All “class” this article is. So we are having record temps and lowest arctic ice and the “science site” is looking the other way and would rather dig in the dirt. So what is the point of all this? Is it to somehow imply that because one man may or may not have stepped over a line, then everyone who accepts the obvious reality of CC is somehow tainted by his behaviour? Have we really stooped to this level in the debate? Oh dear.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 10:48 am

No one is forcing you to read it. Anthony posts hundreds of timesmore of scientifically based articles refuting CAGW but here you are whining about one of the few that is purely political.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 31, 2016 1:09 pm

The Original Mike M
This is not a political commentary, it is muck raking and it minimizes/devalues the better articles that are written here.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
March 31, 2016 3:11 pm

The problem is that so many of the leaders of the AGW “movement” are having similar problems regarding their public morality.
If these guys are really the best your side can dig up, then perhaps it’s time to find a new gravy train.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 3:09 pm

I see simple Simon is back and still trying to convince us that the world is not what we see, but rather what the models predict it should be.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 4:11 pm

“All “class” this article is”
Do you really think this is about the meaningless behavior of one man?
Please read and comment on my comments.
What does they tell you about the star climatists? What does it tell you Naomi O.’s self awareness?
What does it tell you about ideation? Who ideates now? (I love that word.)
This is psycho-sociological seismography.

John Robertson
Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 9:22 pm

Look Simon 1:09, if you are truly concerned about the quality of content here, a simple solution.
Stop posting.
You are attempting to change the subject, nice bit of concern trolling there, whats the matter?
Your international spokesman turns out to be a rather odious creep, but you want to discuss the current alarmist talking points instead?
Get some better talking points, fool,
According to previous Team IPCC ™ proclamations; There is no Arctic Ice.It all melted years ago.
And your “record high” temperatures are way below IPCC projections.
I see you attempt to defend the indefensible, the one man erred defence.
Sure and 2500 IPCC “experts” looked the other way.
All the snickering and innuendo pointed at Patchy here is still way classier than your pathetic trolling.
Are you paid?
Cause you are sad, your employers,if any, should get a refund.

The Original Mike M
March 31, 2016 10:46 am

Now if only others would follow Pachauri’s lead –comment image

March 31, 2016 12:32 pm

Anyway, where’s Lewandowski? Come on, Lew, there’s a paper in this.

Woman in a Push-Up Bra is a Agent of Big Oil – Therefore, Climate Science is Sound.

Reply to  Charlie
March 31, 2016 4:36 pm

I love the rhetoric of the “progressive” “feminist” reply: push-ups, young girls predators, old male victim, conspiracy.
And yet, they will still do the “Republicans war on women” thing next week.
And the “Republicans don’t accept reality, Republicans believe in fairy-tales (world is 6000 years old) so Republicans can’t do science” thing.
What’s next? “The Koch brothers have been using women to adjust Pachauri’s hockey stick up”?

March 31, 2016 1:45 pm

Set up, as in victims coming forward? At least there was no Vatican cover up involved.

Reply to  Resourceguy
March 31, 2016 2:29 pm

Not yet

March 31, 2016 1:53 pm

To all those who don’t appreciate this article, I’d like to point out that an important issue here is the honesty (or lack thereof) of someone who once led the IPCC. The fact that Pachauri is testing out two lies (“I was hacked” and “She set me up for money”) to see which one might fly is appalling.
It seems any report of wrong-doing of the CAGW leaders-in-crime draws a tantrum from their followers along with accusations that such reports are “unworthy” of this site or somehow foul-play.
If your esteemed leaders are caught cheating, lying, stealing, committing f+raud and/or t+reason, abusing others, threatening others, blackmailing others, dodging retribution (or trying to) and blaming anyone and everyone else for their crimes – Shouldn’t that open your eyes just a little bit?
Such dishonesty should be exposed. Such criminality should be exposed. I value articles like this one because it strips away the veneer of holier-than-thou from one who is manipulative and out for himself.
That’s not a leader I want. That’s not a leader anyone should want. Maybe those defending this man should give some thought to what it is they are defending.
Thank you Eric Worrall for posting this. I am very interested in Pachauri’s excuses and the case itself.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
March 31, 2016 2:03 pm

A.D. Everard
“If your esteemed leaders are caught cheating, lying, stealing, committing f+raud and/or t+reason, abusing others, threatening others, blackmailing others, dodging retribution (or trying to) and blaming anyone and everyone else for their crimes – Shouldn’t that open your eyes just a little bit?”
Sheeesh, I hope you are not gonna vote for Trump.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 2:18 pm

Deflecting I see, Simon. Don’t worry about me, look to yourself.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 2:46 pm

A.D. Everard
“Deflecting I see, Simon. Don’t worry about me, look to yourself.”
Actually that is what this article is trying to do. Deflect. From the latest data that is rather inconvenient to the skeptic team. Temps are through the roof and it is getting very hot in the seat it seems. So what do the team do. Drag up some lame story about a guy who may or may not have been involved in inappropriate activity. If he did the crime let him do the time. Now let’s get back to the science.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 3:11 pm

Notice how the troll, when caught out, immediately tries to change the subject.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 3:14 pm

Temps are through the roof?
Are you really this delusional, or are you just being paid to make yourself look bad?
This year’s temperatures are a few hundredths of a degree above last years, completely due to the now ending El Nino.
You want to portray that as through the roof?
As to ice levels, your side was predicting that it should be gone by now.
Between the just ended warm phase of the PDO, the currently ending warm phase of the AMO, and the now ending El Nino, that’s hardly surprising. The ice should have melted a lot more than it did had the models had even the slightest bit of credibility.
Go ahead, keep spinning the lies, I’m sure it keeps you employed.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 5:05 pm

“Deflect. From the latest data that is rather inconvenient to the skeptic team”
No it isn’t. YOU are trying to deflect from arguments that are “rather inconvenient to the (anti-skepticism) team”.
There is a very serious issue that isn’t about one man being discussed here. See my comments: I am not quoting the lawyers of the accused, I am quoting one of the most known supporter of the Cause in academia. It ain’t pretty.
Science is about integrity and respect. Climatists have neither.
If you don’t get that, you don’t see that Science isn’t “Nature laws”. Science is about people, people who care about the truth. It’s about a discovery PROCESS.
Ideally it shouldn’t matter what people want to conclude. Why do you think people care about conflict of interest? Because the system isn’t self correcting in practice. Actually, the system is toxic. The errors are repeated. The cargo science cults are worshiped. All kinds of bad behaviors (I did NOT say conspiracies) exist: see Climategate.
In Science you need to be able to get to the right conclusion even if it wasn’t what you expected and what you wanted. Even if the hypothesis was “pretty” and the observed behavior is NOT.
The suspected behavior of Pachauri isn’t pretty. This forum isn’t a courtroom. We will not make a determination of guilt, but we can discuss the validity of the logical claims. Noami O. is described in the leftist “progressive” (the scare quotes are needed more than ever) press as “Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate”.
“push-ups”? What kind of light is that?
Also, Noami O. thinks she not being sexually molested is evidence. Lack of self awareness.

Reply to  Simon
March 31, 2016 5:30 pm

“Actually that is what this article is trying to do. Deflect. From the latest data that is rather inconvenient to the skeptic team”
Let me summarize your scientific claims:
– Almost 19 years of flat linear fit (no warming at all, not “no significant warming”) with no period with significant (statistically) non zero trend (which is often abbreviated as: “no significant warming for 18 years”) means nothing. It’s a “short term” WEATHER variation.
– A few months of “Temps are through the roof” (no, they are not) is CLIMATE.
I need something bigger than L O L here.

March 31, 2016 2:51 pm

Good luck to him, I tried the same excuse when I got a parking fine but the magistrate was having none of it.

March 31, 2016 4:10 pm

In one of his books, William F Buckley Jr explained, paraphrased, that while proving one man in an organization is corrupt or grossly in error won’t indict the organization as a whole, the responses of that man’s colleagues to the matter can. If they let his misconduct go unrebuked or actively defend it, you have grounds to suspect the whole club is complicit in the up-to-no-goodness. WFB wrote in the context of the post-WW2 liberal establishment, but could easily have written the same about the post-Clinton liberal establishment, or the IPCC.

March 31, 2016 5:21 pm

Some worshipers of the Cause think Lord Monckton being a real Lord or not is extremely important to establish scientific credibility, but being able to be a sexual predator for more than one year in a science institution isn’t… very telling.
There is no “conspiracy” to send unwanted sexual invitations.
But there is an “objective conspiracy” to look away. Objective alliances don’t require people to ever meet and discuss strategic plans.
We are see the typical and systematic dismissal of evidence of the fake scientists.
Science is about method. The methodology of “Cause scientists” is to dismiss anything not “pretty” for the Cause.
No meeting is necessary to establish such antimethodology. There is no antimethodology cookbook. No course of antimethodology. No university of antimethodology.

Contrary to make you think, this is one of the most important and relevant article in this blog full of important and relevant articles.

March 31, 2016 11:00 pm

Why not let the court just do their job ?
Yeah go to court and tell them.. my enemies set me up …three times . Good luck with that .

Reply to  Amber
April 1, 2016 4:14 pm

There were also hand written notes on pieces of paper from septagenarian Pachauri to the 28 year old woman.
I read the file which organized the various and numerous types of messages by date. He wrote them, undoubtedly. Only a fool or an Attorney would say otherwise. It’s as obvious as hair on a dog.
Based upon the facts above, it is my opinion that Pachauri is one dirty, rotten old pervert.
He deserves to serve at least 2 or 3 years in prison.

April 3, 2016 3:26 pm

“Climate Anthropologist and Feminist” Naomi Oreskes. What on earth does she actually do? And she claims she’s sexy? She’ s at best a 4, there are men I’d rather do than her. The delusional entitlement of such a woman is hard to quantify.

April 3, 2016 10:45 pm

So if any of these women actually had an affair would he still be saying he was set up …three times . ?
I feel sorry for any wife who has to read such evidence .

April 4, 2016 9:56 am

There seems to an uncanny resemblance between James Hanson and Naomi Oreskes .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights