The Post-Pachauri World

The indefensible


Pachauri – Cover of The New York Academy of Sciences magazine

When the Pachauri messages came out, they read like the sex-crazed ravings of a octogenarian. Much of the initial excitement and focus has been on the sleazy aspect. But a 14-page list of electronic- and hand-written messages from the police report, filed following a complaint by the TERI employee who was their recipient, paints a damaging picture.

Pachauri and his lawyers have claimed his computers and phone were ‘hacked’, generating the text messages and emails that are on public display.

At the end, comes an email from the TERI employee, addressing Pachauri:

Dear Dr. Pachauri,


You began passing on my work to others without checking with/informing me and this time simply marked me a copy over email without actually having to tell me in person and or without a reason. … It is leaving me with no other thought but that how my request to sit in economy was received in personal distaste and just how you react to all this. Pretty unfortunate and sadly, very disappointing.

The response:

I would have preferred not to respond to your email. But what I will say is that you should reflect on the massive insult you heaped on me by indicating that I was so toxic that you would prefer not to sit next to me on the plane. If that be the case there is no room for any interaction between us. … To me that act of yours represented the ultimate in haughtiness, arrogance and insulting behaviour. …

You are welcome to remain a paid guest of TERI. I really would not burden you with any work in future. […]

About 15 days later, comes the next:

Since I really cannot assign any productive work to you in my office, I am thinking of moving you to your former Division, B and B. However, I will have to discuss that with Dr. Alok Adholeya. […]

The responding email gives the employee’s reluctance to sit next to Pachauri on a flight as direct reason for not assigning further work. This is followed by suggestion of a move to a different division.

According to the Economic Times, Pachauri’s lawyers say the woman filed the harassment complaint ‘only after the [she] was told she might have to move due to her “poor performance”.

These messages are far removed from the ‘Return to Almora’-style outpourings. If true they show a boss ready to damage the career of an underling for not complying with sexual demands. I wonder how, and whether Pachauri’s lawyers will show these emails and messages to be a ‘hacker’s and not his. If they are his they are indefensible – they show the full face of sexual harassment. Time will tell.

Defending the indefensible


Pachauri – Nature’s Newsmaker of the Year 2007

One of the rules of climate propaganda is nothing bad ever happens to ‘the cause’. Now that the climate world has lost Pachauri, there is a sudden need to reconcile the blow with the required plastic cheerful front.

Wikipedia’s William Connolley has stepped up with the narrative. Here’s the short version: ‘Pachauri can be safely pushed under the bus’

The Pachauri situation is a problem for the global warming establishment. It can’t go pretending nothing bad happened — an IPCC chair resigned abruptly over revelations that spilled out one fateful weekend. It cannot defend him – that could potentially mean defending sexual harassment. But defending comes naturally especially to climate activists who believe in not ceding an inch of ground.

This is Connolley’s lead:

But [Pachauri] was clearly a creation of Bush1; which needs to be remembered, lest anyone feel themselves trapped or pressured into defending RKP.

That’s right: the guy who was the face of the organization, darling of the green media contingent, Nature magazine’s ‘Newsmaker of the Year 2007‘, two-time head of the IPCC, put back in his post a second time by its members, and ‘Nobel Laureate’ in countless ill-researched gushing editorials and news items, is suddenly a Bush appointee who ‘wasn’t a successful head’ and only a bone thrown to the ‘Third world and India’.

Sorry WC. Would have been more convincing if you had thrown Bush stooge ‘Patchy’ to the wolves, before charges of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation were filed.



  1. William Connolley

    RKP has been a Bush appointee from the start. I’m surprised you didn’t know the back story. As to “busing” him earlier, having checked, I find that I’ve written almost nothing about him over the years. Try looking up the meaning of the word “contempt” in Hobbes’s work.

    > put back in his post a second time by its members

    I’ve seen other people write this, in an attempt to make him seem like he was popular. Note how you’re careful to avoid clarifying “members” – you mean, governments. Not scientists.

    > in countless ill-researched gushing editorials and news items

    The press is crap. This is news to you? Just how naive are you?

  2. Shub Niggurath

    I am aware of the back-story. I am surprised you had to reach that far back to pull up something to ease the pain of dumping Pachauri. After all, he’s innocent until proven otherwise, and he was a Bush appointee as late as a week back, as well.

    Pachauri is not ‘popular’ in the informed global warming debate online. But he is immensely popular and had broad support inside the technocrat-bureaucrat bubble that is UNFCCC/IPCC. He was competent enough to tide over some tough spots for the IPCC. (Here’s a gushing Nature article from Gabrielle Walker listing some:

    If the ‘press’ is crap, why was Nature being crap? This is again, an editorial from Nature:

    The fact is, he came from an oil industry background, carried the Bush tag, and Pachauri did everything he could he thought would earn him the respect of the green bloc. Your remarks say he’ll always be ‘a Bush man’.

    For that matter, Bush himself is not ‘Bush’ – I hope you realise. It’s just that many US scientists like hating the Republicans and certain sections of the popular press and Democratic party functionaries built their careers building up Republicans into ‘anti-science’ loons.

  3. Simon Hopkinson

    I wonder to what extent RKP is the IPCC’s Jimmy Saville – someone in a position of power, using that power to further his depravity.

    How much did people know? The problem with perceived noble causes is that so much more is let slide, by those who have the influence to be heard, for the supposed greater good. We’ve known for a long time, now, just how much the global warming cult is afflicted by noble cause corruption. It’s always been shocking but it may yet turn out to be disgusting, even sickening.

  4. William Connolley

    > I am aware of the back-story

    Then why act so surprised that I am too? That’s the fundamental point; all else is fluff. RKP was chosen by Bush to be non-credible with the US; as I said; and it worked, as it had to.

    > If the ‘press’ is crap, why was Nature being crap?

    That *is* Nature being the press; not Nature publishing someone else’s science.

    > Bush himself is not ‘Bush’ – I hope you realise

    Sorry, that’s a touch too incoherent for me. If you wanted to make a point, you might want to clarify it.

  5. Brad Keyes


    For objective bodily harm to his young victims, I doubt Sanjay will ever quite reach the Saville-Sandusky pantheon of perverts, since it would appear that nature in her mercy has nerfed his criminal intent with the physical embarrassment of always reaching Nirvana/Almora too soon—during “the preliminaries of lovemaking,” as he calls them.

    But it’s entirely possible that TERI and the IPCC also uphold that great tradition that’s now synonymous with Penn State University:

    If You See Something, Say Something Twenty Years Later.

    In which case who knows how many victims there are?

  6. Shub Niggurath

    I am surprised you feel the need to refer to his GW Bush connection in order to not feel pressured into defending him.

    If Pachauri was a ticking time-bomb planted by Bush to blow up the IPCC the climate community, scientists included, did not act like it. He should have been a pariah from day one, and should have been pushed out of office at the first available opportunity. That’s not what happened – Pachauri was able to win support. Now that he’s suddenly too hot a potato, you want stick a ‘Bush’s baby’ label on him and throw him out? Nah, you guys bought the act you get to keep him.

  7. Brad Keyes

    Haha….Is this Stoat guy (William) a parody act? If so, I surrender whatever poor medals, trophies and crowns I may have falsely earned at Climate Nuremberg. Because this guy is not just the king of taking the piss out of himself, he’s the Caesar, the Napoleon, the Charlemagne of self-beclowning. Get this:

    Our mutual mustelid contact has commenced, at his angry little chink-baiting blog, to redacting not only my use of Ken Rice’s secret identity (Ken Rice) but even my use of the name “William” to address the weaselly proprietor himself!

    ” And while I’m here – we’re not on first name terms. If you force me to the tedium of redacting your , I’ll likely spam you instead -W”

    We’re not on first name terms? ROFL!!!

    I’m sorry.

    There is NO WAY a real person could be so pompous, let alone with so little (if any) accomplishment to back it up.

    We have to assume it’s a fake photo, right? There’s NO WAY a scrawny little dipshit like “William Connolley” would still be burdened with such obliviousness at the age indicated in the snapshot. The moment he opens his mouth in front of other grownups they’re legally, psychologically and primatologically obliged to bully the living Christ out of him, aren’t they? Flushing his head in the toilet, and so forth?

  8. Les Johnson

    Odd, but Connolley, Eli and Bloom all agreed with Pachauri, and at least hinted, if not outright said, that Pachauri was correct in saying the Indian government used “voodoo” science.

    In fact, Connolley also said that the Indian government was practicing voodoo science, and thus implicitly supported Pachauri.

    I also searched Stoat for “Pachauri”. I could find only 6 references, and this is hard to believe, but Connolley did not ONCE criticize Pachauri, at least that I could find, except in the very last one. This is the post, where after nearly 12 years, Connolley suddenly realizes that Pachauri was NOT OPPPOSED by Bush.

    Connolley does not mention Pachauri by name in these posts on IPCC reform, except pointing out in Comments, that Pachauri was a Bush nominee.

    In other words, he supported Pachi until he resigned; then Connolley was content to throw him under the Bush bus.

  9. Brad Keyes


    thanks for finding that stuff.

    Eli Rabbit / Josh Halpern left an interesting comment under the ‘Arrogant’ post:

    ‘the humor in “The report awaits ‘many centuries’ of data” can be found in the best estimates for when the glaciers disappear, like in thirty years or so.’

    I’m not sure if I’m reading this correctly, but did Eli just call a 30-year time frame “the best estimates”?

    A timeframe which nobody could possibly believe for a nanosecond (or so William keeps reminding us)?

  10. Les Johnson

    Yes, that was my take as well. Halpern, Bloom and Connolley all believed that the glaciers would be gone in 30 or so years. And they appeared gobsmacked that anyone, let alone the Indian government, would believe otherwise.

    I would love to see Connolley’s take on his words then.

  11. Shub Niggurath

    Les, you are absolutely right. At that time, Connolley was content to accept the IPCC estimates as gospel, without having examined its provenance, and go after Raina for observational science and J Ramesh the-then Indian environment minister for arguing against ‘Western science’ due to ‘nationalism’.

    Today he tells Victor Venema he ‘can’t even begin to believe’ how bad it was, how it was ‘ really very shoddy work’, ‘probably because the Indians got to write it’ because it was ‘about “their” glaciers’.

    None of the above are true. They simply reflect the constant prejudices of Connolley who attacks both sides of the argument with the same nationalist hammer. It reflects how ill-researched these opinions are, and how much of the IPCC is taken up on faith, defended blindly, and critics smeared with a broad brush.

    The original 2035 claim was not western science, it originated with S Hasnain, an Indian scientist. It was hyped by the ‘Western’ Fred Pearce and then the WWF. The IPCC chapter lead author who handled the section was Murari Lal, a Fijian and the review editors were from Japan and Phillipines. Observational on-the-ground evidence was precisely what was needed to counter the high retreat rates claimed by the IPCC for the glaciers and VK Raina was a pioneer and recognized expert in Himalayan glaciers.

    It is true Western science in general is advanced compared to the Indians’ but what Jairam Ramesh referred to was that the Indians needed to do better. Otherwise, they are forced to accept what’s written about their country in outside sources such as the IPCC reports – a liability when it comes to international negotiations. This is something the Indians, the Chinese and the Brazilians have learned late. The AR4/Copenhagen climate activist line had something bad cooked up for each continent/negotiating bloc. All bad things were scheduled for implosion by 2030 – the Great Barrier Reef by 2020 and the Amazon and the Himalayas by 2030.

    Today, with the safety of distance, a scientist like Victor Venema can tell with one look there is something wrong with the 2035 figure. Yet, the same passed muster with IPCC authors, review editors and with activists. Connolley forgets the zeitgiest. This is Eli Rabett on Himalayan glaciers:

  12. Richard Tol (@RichardTol)

    I welcomed Pachauri’s appointment at the time, knowing full well who he was, because the runner-up was worse. Pielke Jr, Storch and I did try (but failed) to push him under the bus in January 2010.

  13. William Connolley

    >> believed that the glaciers would be gone in 30 or so years

    > Les, you are absolutely right. At that time, Connolley was content to accept the IPCC estimates as gospel

    You’re not very good at reading things. No-one believed that. As I pointed out on my blog, no-one (apart from a couple of reviewers who pointed out the error) even read that section of the report. I certainly didn’t. Anyone reading it would immeadiately realise it was nonsense.

    The rubbish text sat there, unread, for about 3 years before someone finally noticed it and publicised it. At which point everyone said, yeah, its rubbish. So, no: the text had no influence.

    > This is Eli Rabett on Himalayan glaciers:

    “said Eli Rabett continuing the turgid wanky wonkery”

    No, that’s no Eli, that’s you dishonestly putting words in his mouth.

  14. Shub Niggurath

    No one read it except Pachauri’s own organization TERI and Syed Hasnain who applied for a half-a-million grant on the basis. Except Murari Lal the section author who admitted they knew it was not good but decided to put in there anyway. Except Mark Lynas who had hurry to delete a post on the Himalayan glaciers. Except for the people who read it and contacted Pachauri and the IPCC in in the 2008-2009 period. The post-publication to media outcry was 2 years, not three. The people who wrote to Pachauri are on record saying they had to get their objections in high-enough a venue so it won’t be easily dismissed – which is why they approached Science – in other words, more time wasted.

    From ~2002, Hasnain laundered the ‘glaciers are melting’ cry of doom at every available opportunity and there were lots of opportunities – from the New Scientist, Financial Express, ABC News, New York Times etc – and all before, and shamefully enough even during the final expose. The Met Office, Iceland, the Carnegie Corporation – funded projects on the basis of rapid glacier melt in the Himalayas and the latter two with the explicit mention of the 2030s dates.

    The dishonesty is yours, from claiming it was ‘trivia’, then wasting everyone’s time not performing research (i.e., reading) and holding up comments. My suggestion would be to retreat into WG1 territory where the scientists are more predictable, even if the science is not, so you can run your opinions on faith and be assured of not being wrong.

  15. Brad Keyes


    This is quite the neurological circus act, isn’t it?

    You’re not very good at reading things. No-one believed that. … Anyone reading it would immeadiately realise it was nonsense…. So, no: the text had no influence.

    He who denies the past denies the present, he who denies the present (&c. &c.)

    As if we needed further proof of the affinity of climate gullibilism and reality-denialism!

    Alas, as everyone reading this page has already verified with their own eyes, WC’s rodent cousin Eli “believed” it. Just one of a number of conflicts between the “inner” “reality” of WC’s mental cinema and actual, reality-reality.

    (Or did WC mean “no-one with half a brain”, perhaps? Have I failed to make sufficient distinction between “nobody” and “nobunny”? Hehe)

    I just looked at the stoat’s climate misinformer website and was entertained to witness the furious backstroke of the aquatic rat in its natural habitat. See how it retreats from insistences that you’re ‘making things up’ out of thin air to the inevitable, flaccid defeat of ‘well, the multiple sources you cite aren’t unimpeachable‘? Gasp! They’re not unimpeachable. Whatever that means. Which is nothing.

  16. Brad Keyes

    I’m still dying to know:

    In William (“WC”) Connolley’s fantasy, how do strangers and new acquaintances greet, address and refer to him?

    Given his apparent titular obsession I presume it’s something like “Your Mustelid Magnificence” or “Nurse Wilhelm” or “A/Prof Con”?

    Anyone? Anyone know what honorific the pompous farm animal dreams of being granted one day by total strangers? (If it’s ridiculous enough I may even use it on him.)

  17. Pingback: Pachauri’s Sofa | NoFrakkingConsensus
  18. Brad Keyes

    I think I traced the ‘vehemently/vigorously denies’ meme back to its source:

    1. one sentence in the scanned court documents:

    “The plaintiff was never the author of such objectionable material.”

    2. also, the adjective “false” is used once ibid. to describe the allegations.

    Far be it from me to question the vehemence or vigor of a human viagra pill like Sanjay, but wouldn’t it be just as accurate to say “a judge said Pachauri’s lawyers deny the charges”? Or is that equivalent, in forensic logic? Times like this I wish I’d finished that Law degree.

    Anyway, I think you’ve been working with Donna on this stuff. Is that where the meme comes from, as far as you know?

  19. Pingback: Quote of the week: former IPCC head Pachauri’s emails could be a whole new potboiler novel | Watts Up With That?
  20. Shub Niggurath

    Brad, the woman complained internally at TERI first. A good guess would be that Pachauri’s had enough time to line up his defense and get his ducks in a row. You’re right though that the messages are such a nature he’s lost one avenue, namely, that of semantic ambiguity. All he can do is disown them, which turns the thing into a technical affair – of establishing who the originator of these messages was.

  21. Brad Keyes

    Hehe I love it when voodoo non-scientists think they can win on ‘technical affairs.’ This will be fun.

  22. Pingback: Ongoing silence from the CBC’s Pachauri front | The View From Here
  23. Pingback: Tony Thomas: The Hot-to-Trot Warmist | RUTHFULLY YOURS
  24. Pingback: The Hot-to-Trot Warmist | No B-S here (I hope)