Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Guardian Scoop: IPCC Chairman made Millions in Moonlighting Consulting work

George Monbiot has revealed that Rajendra Pachauri, shadowy Chairman of the IPCC, has been quietly trousering millions doing consulting work, while supposedly otherwise employed on the taxpayer’s dime, saving the world from apocalypse. Monbiot–who established his reputation among the denierati by being among the first to call for the defenestration of Professor Phil Jones–reveals that Chairman Pauchari was paid some 3,268,162.77 INR (£45,000) from consulting in his spare time.

Sticklers may object that “taxpayer’s dime” is an exaggeration, since Pachauri is not actually paid a penny for his IPCC duties. However, it’s important to consider these salary figures in the perspective of the per capita GDP ($1031) of his home country, India, where they don’t look quite so far out of line, relatively speaking.

In a disturbing development–and a threat to the freedom of the press to print whatever “facts” they please–Pachauri employed the notorious
Farter-Fuck law firm to extort a groveling apology and retraction from the Sunday Torygraph:

On 20 December 2009 we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made "millions of dollars" in recent years. We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused.

All this for what was likely just a copy editor’s error innocent mixing up of the terms “dollars” and “rupees”. The original
Sunday Telegraph article has been censored but can still be read here.

Richard North, argues that “anyone with a modicum of intelligence” will be able to read this as a non-apology. As he carefully explains:

Nevertheless, these gold-diggers [Carter-Fuck] keep coming back, and back and back, each time stacking up the costs. To get rid of them, the paper can say that it "did not intend ... ", etc., without any problem. It neither intended nor did so in fact. It can also say, without a problem, that: "we accept KPMG found Dr Pachauri had not made 'millions of dollars' in recent years." The paper can do so because KPMG "finding" that "Dr Pachauri had not made 'millions of dollars'" is a matter of fact. KPMG did so find. If you wish too [sic] believe that means Pachauri didn't make millions of dollars, that is your affair. But the crucial thing is that the paper has not apologised for accusing Pachauri of making millions of dollars. That accusation stands uncorrected. The paper simply accepts that KPMG has a claims [sic] in this respect. So, the paper ends up making two statements of fact, on which basis it then "apologises" to Pachauri "for any embarrassment caused," an anodyne phrasing that does not even admit to having caused any embarrassment. This is pure, meaningless bullshit.

bullshit, indeed, as intelligent readers of FoGT will appreciate.

File photo credit