Chairman Pachauri’s Messy Messages

Posted: February 21, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Pachauri’s got a lower torsopheric hotspot.

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Texts and e-mails allegedly sent by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri tell a disturbing tale. Months after a female subordinate objected repeatedly and strenuously to his sexual advances, the UN official continued to physically and electronically stalk her.

Pachauri_chairing_IPCCmeeti detail from the Mail Today‘s “Messy Messages” sidebar

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is on the front page of India’s Mail Today newspaper. The above-the-fold headline proclaims: Green Pachauri Battles Slur. This suggests that the sex allegations leveled against the UN official by a 29-year-old female subordinate are untrue.

But the full-page story that follows paints a different picture. For example, there’s the garishly-coloured sidebar titled Messy Messages. It highlights missives allegedly written by Pachauri that now appear in the woman’s 33-page police complaint.

Pachauris_messy_messages click to enlarge

This woman reportedly began her employment at Pachauri’s TERI institute on September 1st, 2013. The Mail Today

View original post 977 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    The guy is 74 for heaven’s sake. What’s he like?

  2. jarlgeir says:

    Within Clmate Science there are a lot of interesting curves to study. As usual some of the most interesting ones belong to some of the young women. Do we have to redefine the UHI effect?

  3. M Simon says:

    What this says is that Pachauri is a Beta among men. What does an Alpha do when a woman is not interested? “Next”

  4. M Simon says:

    I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that he is just an order taker. The people actually capable (for a while) of world domination are at least one step removed.

  5. craigm350 says:

    Swap IPCC for BP or Shell CEO…. 😉

  6. Konrad. says:

    I’d cry “Oh the sleaze”, but he is head of the IPCC and sleaze is to be expected. Climate scientists have a reputation for sexing-up figures, inflating things and putting their probes in warm zones.

    I’m looking forward the Bollywood movie –

    “Two by Gravy Train”
    *Staring Rajendra Pachauri*
    ”Their passion would melt the Himalayan Glaciers”

  7. Alex says:

    True love

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    We’re always hearing about “climate change communications” and academic & left bleeding heart lust for game-changing break-through strategies. We should consider the possibility that we’re seeing them attempt to take media operations to a higher (perhaps pre-scripted?) level. This will certainly attract media attention. I suspect we’ll see a lot of people seize the related messaging opportunities and eventually reframe this as a media penetration blessing. As I’ve said before: They’re closed to logic but they’re open to art. Rather than deal with reality as it actually exists by being practical & tactical, I’ve noticed that a lot of skeptics still cling to their counterproductive ideologies about how things “should” be in a climate discussion. Never mind how things “should” be. This is how it is. Art. Fiction. Fantasy. 1+1=2 has no place in discussions with these sorts of people. They find it peripheral, distracting, & unworthy of attention. We can only motivate them to fundamentally reorient by evoking emotions and inspiring (for example more profound respect for natural beauty). In contrast, pointing out 1+1=2 a million more times has zero effect.

  9. oldbrew says:

    PV: in other words it’s a propaganda war, hearts and minds stuff. In such a scenario science is just a buzzword.

    ‘The UNFCCC meeting in Paris [late 2015] is a major money and power-grab, and those with snouts in the trough know that their future fat cheques depend on how well they push propanganda, silence critics, and shout down intelligent debate. At one stage they were asking for 1.5% of global GDP (about $2,500 per Western family of four annually).’

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB suggested:
    “in other words it’s a propaganda war, hearts and minds stuff. In such a scenario science is just a buzzword.”

    well-said OB
    Joanne’s sharp like a tack.
    wuwt = infiltrated, co-opted, used to bait & neutralize

    spatiotemporal changes from ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4 = giveaway
    hand’s showing (double-or-nothing every time no matter what = exponential escalation — most powerful force in universe = compound interest – Einstein)

    artistic touch of red paint in the southern ocean poleward of africa = clever (cold calculation itself couldn’t better optimize the sun-climate EOF distortion — distortion art-school endgame scholarships awarded for this timely smashing ace)

    natural beauty = defaced
    …and the chairman’s feasting, not fasting

    but they made one very serious mistake (to be continued…..)

  11. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘to be continued’ – the Tony Thomas thread is probably a better place.

    Meanwhile, ‘Patchy’ has been accused of the same ‘behaviour’ by another woman ex-employee.
    The full text of the woman’s unedited statement appears here.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, it’s an old tactic:
    bait and switch

    (why waste a high-visibility messaging opportunity? kind of thing = what to watch for…)

  13. Bob Weber says:

    Paul, since 1+1=2 is being ignored, what do you suggest? What do you mean here “We can only motivate them to fundamentally reorient by evoking emotions and inspiring (for example more profound respect for natural beauty)”?

    If the truth is being ignored, why do you still make new graphs? Why haven’t you given up then?

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob: curiosity, natural instinct, entertainment — these are the reasons to explore
    ignorance & hatred need not be reasons to stop

    If he doesn’t already, Pachauri (like anyone else) can be persuaded to love the sun.

    SunLoverz ft. Rosette – “Fire”

  15. tallbloke says:

    Patchi has gone. Where does this leave all the IPCC people backing his claim he was innocent?