Journalists spent years falsely calling the IPCC chairman a Nobel laureate and the world’s ‘top climate scientist.’
Media outlets are supposed to be more reliable than your brother-in-law, but that seems less true every day.
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is essentially a law unto itself, an entrenched culture with no meaningful oversight mechanisms.
Scientific debate can’t accomplish its purpose if we pretend there is no debate.
Some news outlets still haven’t reported on the 3-year-old sexual harassment allegations against prominent climate official, Rajendra Pachauri.
The former head of the world’s most important climate body has been charged with a long list of sex offences.
Activists have predicted environmental catastrophe for decades. In addition to a poor track record, they share similar arguments, language, and metaphors.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?
The former head of the IPCC has long posed as a saviour of the planet. In reality, he’s been a systematic sexual predator – the kind of boss no young woman should have to endure.
People who once worked at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI aren’t surprised by the sexual allegations leveled against him.
The former IPCC chairman says he’s the victim of a conspiracy. But conspiracies can’t be exposed if journalists are silenced.
The Guardian newspaper once again wrongly calls Rajendra Pachauri a Nobel laureate. For good measure, it publishes a photo of him looking pious – while neglecting to mention the serious sexual offenses for which he is being investigated.
A man who used to joke that he lived “at 30,000 feet” is well and truly grounded. This week two courts denied the former IPCC chairman permission to leave the country.
A lawyer for Rajendra Pachauri says that preventing the former IPCC chairman from delivering a speech at a trade show in Greece will damage India’s image and harm Pachauri’s reputation.
Climate science is a world in which people who donate money to museums are targeted and ostracized. Yet creeps who write about urinating on women get a free pass. Part 1 of 3.
A passage in his 2010 novel makes it clear the former IPCC chairman understands that it’s wrong for an older male boss to hit on a young woman new to his organization.
In the wake of sexual misconduct allegations, Rajendra Pachauri’s semi-autobiographical novel is being taken out of circulation. What possessed him to publish it under his own name while still chairman of the IPCC?
New Delhi police say the former IPCC chairman is violating his bail conditions by hampering their investigation and influencing witnesses.
Men who try to get women into bed via premature, extravagant professions of love aren’t uncommon. But only bosses who view female employees as their personal harem try this within days of a woman joining an organization.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele became an IPCC official in 2002. Two years later he got into bed with Greenpeace. Part 2 of 2.
The second-in-command at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants a promotion, but has no intention of addressing critics’ concerns. Part 1 of 2.
The Indian media is examining the wider implications of Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation while Western journalists pretend not to see the sex scandal.
TERI women have summoned the courage to speak up about the nature of their workplace. Will TERI’s men step forward and do their part?
Invited to deliver a lecture in memory of a talented and successful feminist judge, Rajendra Pachauri didn’t think her half of humanity was worth mentioning.
Why is a man accused of egregious sexual harassment still the chancellor of a university? Why is he still on a UNESCO panel when that entity says gender equality is a global priority?
Electronic messages cited in a Delhi police report tell the story of a spirited young woman who effectively lost her job because she wouldn’t let her boss grope her.
In his home country, the former chairman of the IPCC is being called ‘Dr. Lecherous.’ A female journalist says she was ‘repulsed’ by the vain, pompous Pachauri she once met in person.
A court has barred the former IPCC chairman from his workplace and forbidden travel abroad without permission. A conference at Harvard University has withdrawn his guest speaker invitation.
Is the former chairman of the IPCC genuinely ill – or is this a ‘strategic move’ on the part of his legal team to forestall his arrest?
The resignation letter of the IPCC chairman is a two-page love letter to himself – in which he openly admits that saving the planet is his ‘religion’. The world’s most important climate body has not been led by a dispassionate scientist.
Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI institute appears to be a workplace in which female employees are habitually invited to spend private time with the boss.
Additional women are stepping forward with tales of inappropriate behaviour on the part of Rajendra Pachauri, who has chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 2002.
Texts and emails 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 head of a UN body continued to physically and electronically stalk her.
An Indian court has ruled against Rajendra Pachauri and in favour of press freedom. The IPCC chairman sought to prevent the media from reporting on a police investigation concerning allegations of sexual misconduct.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri is being investigated under four sections of the Indian Penal Code. Maximum prison sentences of two, three, and seven years apply.
According to a police complaint, one of the biggest names in climate science grabbed, touched, and forcibly kissed a female subordinate in the workplace.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is threatening us with hellfire and damnation. But its conclusions are suspect. Rather than investigating all possible causes of climate change, it’s in the business of pointing a finger at humanity.
The IPCC acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. It has a long history of recruiting activist personnel, and is led by a man prone to exaggeration.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
According to the agenda of an upcoming conference, three Nobel laureates will be participating. But only one of them is genuine.
Pachauri’s 2010 work of fiction and the credibility of the IPCC’s 2013-2014 climate report are now inextricably linked.
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
There are many reasons to distrust the UN’s climate panel. Let’s start with political meddling and authors linked to green lobby groups.
It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it’s entirely appropriate to judge an organization by its leader.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
With attention focused on the IPCC’s imminent Working Group 1 report, a prestigious science journal has published a misleadingly-headlined profile of Working Group 3 co-chair, Ottmar Edenhofer.
Multiple UN entities falsely describe the chairman of the IPCC as a Nobel prize winner.
The day after the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, the Office of the Prime Minister of Norway made false declarations about the head of the IPCC.
The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll.
Why has Yale University promulgated the fiction that the chairman of the IPCC is a Nobel laureate?
Why does the New York Academy of Sciences falsely call the chairman of the IPCC a Nobel laureate?
My new book takes a close look at Rajendra Pachauri, the man in charge of the UN entity that will release a new climate report later this month. It’s available as a paperback, a Kindle e-book, or an instantly downloadable PDF.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
The head of the IPCC has written a novel in which the central character is infatuated with pseudoscience and in which UFO enthusiast Shirley MacLaine is presented as credible. The final installment of the Nobel Laureate Summer Reading series.
Girl spurns boy, marries someone else, and is anally raped on her honeymoon. Girl comes crawling back to boy, begging for forgiveness, and pleading for one more chance.
There’s nothing wrong with writing a sex-saturated novel. But IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this book is “all about spirituality.”
Between the ages of four and six, our hero is judged to be the smartest, gets “revenge against the whole world,” and is preferred by the girls.
Tidbit #1 from Rajendra Pachauri’s 2010 novel. HSBC, the huge multinational bank, has linked its brand to this strange, stilted prose.
Rajendra Pachauri holds only one PhD – not two, as his official IPCC bio claims.
An organization headed by a senior IPCC official (Working Group 3 Vice-Chair, Carlo Carraro) has ranked TERI, an organization headed by the IPCC’s chairman, first in the world.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
It takes chutzpah to accuse other people of something you yourself are peddling.
The IPCC chairman’s response to The Great Global Warming Swindle sheds light on his pathetic leadership.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
Last week, a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC was held in India. The World Wildlife Fund provided funding.
The head of the IPCC thinks “a large part of the human species” is endangered by climate change. Apparently that makes him an optimist.
Months before authors were even selected to write an upcoming IPCC report, its chairman was telling a live audience what conclusion that report would reach.
Hundreds of souls have volunteered to serve as IPCC expert reviewers. But the review process lacks integrity – and the system is being gamed.
The IPCC describes itself as a completely transparent organization. If that is the case, the draft chapters of its upcoming report that were leaked on the Internet yesterday should be a non-issue.
UN officials say we should listen to science. Don’t be fooled. It’s a rhetorical ploy, a cover for their own agenda.
In an official statement, the IPCC says it’s improper for any of its personnel to describe themselves as Nobel laureates. But the statement is all but invisible on the IPCC’s website.
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
The IPCC has abandoned science in favour of affirmative action.
Will a load-of-nonsense IPCC press release be corrected?
The head of what is supposed to be a neutral scientific body saw no impropriety recently in accepting an award that applauds his environmental activism.
Five years before Rajendra Pachauri became chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a judge ruled that he had “sworn to false affidavits” – and that a non-profit organization was “not safe” in his hands.
The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?
The IPCC is supposed to be “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” How can it be OK for its chairman to lobby for one policy in particular?
For the head of the IPCC, sustainable is just another word for a global anti-poverty campaign. Which means that organizations such as his own TERI institute, in poor countries such as India, receive lots of funding.
If you were hosting a sustainability conference that criticized energy-intensive lifestyles and over-consumption, would you do it at a five-star hotel?
When I describe the surreal world of climate science to people who are strangers to that world I know it sounds fantastical. But there are strong parallels with the recently destroyed economies of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
Back in 2007 IPCC chairman Pachauri made a prediction regarding the year 2012.
According to the head of what is supposed to be a neutral scientific body, young people need to be mobilized to become major agents of change. Does it really need to be said that science is no longer science if those with activist agendas are in charge?
How funny would it have been had IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that gays should be given a one-way ticket to outer space?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to be a neutral and impartial body. But its chairman is encouraging business students to be green activists.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has systematically misled us regarding the quality and kind of material his organization consults.
The UK’s Guardian newspaper has published a fawning article about IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. But the article is pure propaganda. It was written by the Natural Resources Defense Council – a green lobby group that fancies itself “the Earth’s best defense.”
Many IPCC authors were chosen for reasons other than impressive scholarly track records.
At the end of 2011 Treehugger.com continues to portray IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri as a saint.
40 people belonged to the IPCC’s 2007 ‘core writing team.’ 11 of them have documented links to either the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace.
A year after a damning assessment was released, the IPCC continues to thumb its nose at key recommendations.
According to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, history is about environmental villains and bizarre motives.
In 2007 the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world was at a defining moment, that the next 2 to 3 years would determine our future. Without a new emissions treaty by 2012, he said, it would be too late.
Auditors investigating mismanagement of the 2010 Commonwealth Games say a committee that was supposed to monitor environmental concerns appears to have never met. IPCC chairman Pachauri was a member.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to stick to the science. But not only do its leaders make political pronouncements – these pronouncements are startlingly unsophisticated.
The scientific community expects us to trust its judgment on the question of whether global warming is the fault of human beings. But its response to the Chris Landsea affair demonstrates that that judgment is impaired.
There’s a link between hurricane expert Chris Landsea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. That link is James J. McCarthy.
The credibility of the IPCC has long been in tatters. There have been multiple calls for the resignation of its chairman. Rather than addressing this state of affairs, the head of the IPCC thinks corporate entities should change their ways – because we live in a world in which “reputation and public opinion are extremely important.”
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says responding to climate change is part of a larger goal: transforming the world economy.
You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds.
Last year a committee investigating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told it to pull up its socks and follow its own rules. This week, the IPCC decided to jettison an important rule instead.
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of what is supposed to be a respectable science body, has – with deliberation and forethought – publicly linked that body to left-wing political analysis and activism.
Before the IPCC was even founded, the Worldwatch Institute had already declared that global warming was caused by fossil fuels. Surely that makes the IPCC chairman’s decision to fraternize with this activist organization a bit awkward.
Rajendra Pachauri does not display the aloof, dispassionate demeanour traditionally evoked by the term “scientist.” Instead, he repeatedly lends the good name of the scientific body he chairs to activist endeavours.
Actions speak louder the words. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims to be impartial and evenhanded – but that’s not how it behaves.
How does someone who hasn’t yet earned their doctorate get nominated by their own government for IPCC duty multiple times? How does the IPCC, which claims to be comprised of the world’s top scientists, repeatedly select this person to fill senior roles?
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change thinks you and your children should feel chilly in the winter and too hot in the summer. He also thinks it’s his business to decide what amount of meat consumption is healthy and desirable.
A recently-released collection of candid insider comments confirms many of our worst fears about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is dysfunctional and unaccountable. That Rajendra Pachauri remains as its chairman – despite widespread calls for his resignation – is proof of this.
How often does the media imply that IPCC Peace Prize winners are scientific Nobel laureates?
What do IPCC insiders really think of chairman Rajendra Pachauri?
IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight?
Andrew Revkin has identified a mistake in a UN climate negotiations document. This same “small error” has also appeared in the headlines of two UN press releases.
A new IPCC press release says “thousands of scientists” contribute to the climate bible. But a list of authors selected to take part in the upcoming edition contains only 831 names.
Among these is Lisa Alexander. She began writing IPCC reports a decade before she’d even earned her PhD.
The man in charge of one of the world’s most influential organizations thinks his critics should rub asbestos on their faces. Those who disagree with him, he says, are arrogant, have suspect motives, and practice “voodoo science.”
Delegates to a four-day Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting chose not to replace chairman Rajendra Pachauri with someone more credible and professional. Journalists beware: nothing this man says should be taken at face value.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
The IPCC’s chairman tells us constantly that 20-30% of the planet’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. But experts in that field say the research on which the IPCC bases its conclusions is rubbish.
A report released this week blows smoking holes through just about everything the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been telling us.
The review committee examining the IPCC process has recommended that “rigorous conflict of interest” policies be adopted. Hallelujah.
Close examination of the climate bible leaves one dumbfounded. Almost nothing we’ve been told about it seems remotely true. Almost nothing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has said – or continues to say – about that document seems connected to reality.
According to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2007 climate bible “was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006.” So how could a paper that wasn’t accepted for publication in a scientific journal until May 2008 (29 months later) be cited multiple times?
Ten months after the official cutoff date, and well after the expert reviewers were out of the picture, climate bible authors inserted references to the Stern Review into 12 different chapters.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly declared that the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed source material. This claim is false. Rajendra Pachauri should resign.
The British government says 99% of the sources on which the climate bible bases its arguments should be peer-reviewed. But only 70% are.
The chairman of the IPCC has said that non-peer-reviewed research is so undeserving of the IPCC’s attention it should be thrown “into the dustbin.” Yet on one page of the climate bible, only 17% of the text is backed-up by peer-reviewed research.
The climate bible is the ultimate weapon in the global warming debate. Skeptics are told the experts have spoken and that carbon dioxide is the Great Satan.
Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the latest version of the climate bible – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed. 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning report had so few peer-reviewed references they earned an F on our report card.
A poll was held prior to the release of our citizen audit findings. That project tallied up the number of climate bible references which involve peer-reviewed sources. (The public has long been told all references are to such material, yet we discovered 1/3 are not.)
In this blog post, I invited people to help me examine the references relied upon by the climate bible. Five weeks later, we delivered a report card in which 21 of 44 chapters of the climate bible received an ‘F’.
The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly told the world the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. He is wrong.
Science is about doubt – not certainty. Journalism is supposed to reveal – not conceal. When scientific organizations claim there’s a consensus, they step over the line into political advocacy. When media outlets trumpet said consensus they “disappear” highly-qualified, dissenting scientists.
If I pay for an inspection prior to purchasing a house and later discover the report contained significant errors, it will do the inspector no good to argue that 95 percent of what he wrote is still true. Nor will my confidence be restored when he blusters: “Hey, what’s a few typos?”
Drug trial results are closely scrutinized. Corporate financial statements are routinely audited. Yet science academy bureaucrats – and a lot of others who should have known better – have advised us to blindly trust IPCC reports.
When newspaper clippings are cited as evidence in the climate bible, when there’s a discrepancy between what an article says and what the IPCC claims it says – neither the process nor the end result is anything like what we’ve been told.
Two UK newspapers call for the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC. A third alleges that while he urges others to reduce their carbon footprint, he himself travels to work (one mile from his home) in a chauffeur-driven car rather than walking, cycling, or driving himself in an eco-friendly vehicle.