Danger… to women, that is

Here at ACM we always thought Rajendra Pachauri was a wrong-un, especially with his bizarre and creepy penchant for writing steamy novels.

Looks like he moved from writing about it to doing it, whether the lady in question wanted it or not.

Indian police said Tuesday they had charged the former head of the UN climate change panel Rajendra Pachauri with sexual harassment, following a complaint by an ex-colleague at an environmental think-tank.

Police brought the charges against Pachauri in a Delhi trial court, more than a year after a female employee in her late twenties filed a complaint accusing him of sending inappropriate texts and emails.

“We have filed the charge sheet today and the court will decide when to begin the hearing,” investigating officer Virender Dalal told AFP.

Police have charged Pachauri, 75, with four counts including sexual assault, harassment and criminal intimidation, according to the complainant’s lawyer.

“Police have filed the nearly 1,400-page charge sheet in the trial court,” lawyer Prashant Mendiratta told AFP.

“We will need time to examine the entire document but it states that they have found prima facie evidence,” he added.

Not surprised, given it runs to a staggering 1,400 pages. That’s IPCC AR5 territory, but no doubt this particular read would be vastly more entertaining!

He’ll have plenty of time to write more steamy sex scenes in prison.

Subtracts credibility

As Shub Niggurath puts it:

“Here is an organization that cannot tackle its own internal issues, but yet expects the whole world to take advice from it for solving a supposed global problem.”

But I for one am not complaining that Pachauri is staying on – as I have said before, every day he remains in charge subtracts credibility from the IPCC, and that can only be a good thing. The recent meeting in Busan has deferred a number of key issues for later discussion:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has adopted new guidelines on dealing with scientific uncertainties following criticism of its 2007 report.

But the panel’s meeting in South Korea closed with many other reforms proposed in a recent review being passed to committees for further consideration.

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri confirmed his intention to stay in post until the next assessment is published in 2014.

…

In its recent review of the IPCC, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) – an umbrella group for the world’s science academies – highlighted a case in the 2007 assessment where studies projecting rapidly declining crop yields in Africa were given more weight than they merited, in the absence of supporting evidence.

The revised guidance emphasises that in future, authors must assess both the quality of research available and uncertainties within that research.

It urges authors to be careful of “group-think”, but maintains that it “may be appropriate to describe findings for which the evidence and understanding are overwhelming as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers”.

Enhanced guidance on the use of “grey literature” – material not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals – has also been drawn up, and will be finalised by chairs of the IPCC’s working groups in the coming months

I can bet you that all the grey literature they use will plug the alarmist cause. There won’t be any that challenges the consensus, will there?

Read the rest here.

UPDATE: Must read – Donna Laframboise’s summary of the madness here.

Anything goes if we say so

The UK Telegraph reports that Rajendra Pachauri has “defended the use of grey literature” in the IPCC’s reports. As long as it supports the IPCC’s pre-conceived conclusion of man-made warming, that is. Because whenever grey literature challenges the consensus, the knee-jerk response is “but it isn’t peer-reviewed!”. Hands up who can spot the hypocrisy there?

The head of the UN’s climate change panel has defended the use of unproven science to justify climate change by saying the “grey literature” cannot be ignored.

…

In a hearing at the InterAcademy Council, an organisation of the world’s science academies which is conducting an independent review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri described the inclusion of the glacier claim as “human failure” which should not have happened. [No it wasn’t, it was deliberately put in to “pressure policymakers”, see here – Ed]

But the IPCC’s chairman said there was a need to use information which was not from peer-reviewed scientific journals, because in some places that was the only research that had been done.

He said the media and other sections of society had misunderstood the role of such information, labelling it grey literature, “as if it was some form of grey muddied water flowing down the drains”.

Dr Pachauri said academic work being done by bodies including the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, national governments and charities “cannot be ignored” [all backing the alarmist view, of course – Ed], but had to be closely examined [yeah, right – Ed] to make sure it was robust. (source)

And the IPCC was also very keen to use one particular journal that was unpublished at the time the report was finalised:

It was so impressed by one edition of the academic journal Climatic Change that it cited 16 of the 21 papers published that month. The journal editors should take a bow. When three-quarters of a single issue of your publication is relied on by a Nobel-winning report, you’re doing something right.

Except for one small problem. The issue in question – May 2007 – didn’t exist yet when the IPCC wrote its report. Moreover, none of the research papers eventually published in that issue had been finalized prior to the IPCC’s cutoff date. (source)

But hey, who cares? When an organisation and its chairman are so politically and financially motivated to come up with evidence to support a pre-conceived conclusion, anything goes. Yet it is on the advice of this organisation that governments around the world are basing their climate policies. Climate madness.