Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Telegraph article.

I suspect there will be calls to include something from this article in the Telegraph today. I urge caution. reportedly, the meeting was secret, which presumably means the information about the meeting was obtained in violation of an agreement. This is not to say it automatically gets excluded, but it is suspect. In addition, the author seems unaware that non-peer-reviewed material is acceptable, so there are other red flags in this piece.--SPhilbrickT 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. No mention of the payments to Dr. P's firm for the disputed data. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The new hockey stick Chart of global warming skepticism (GIF image) Scale is the percentage of people who reject man-made global warming hypothesis. Steve Harnish (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

Wonderful photo of Dr. P in this article of 2/26/2010: Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel Something of that asbestos remark comes to mind. Steve Harnish (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

No reason given for re-addition William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What, apart from well sourced and it was agreed on weeks ago you mean? Please self revert the text is reliably sourced and an important part of his bio mark nutley (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As well as the original source being wp:rs i have some more if required UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims UN climate chief's research institute won grants after flawed predictions on glaciers Did ‘Himalayan blunder’ help TERI get lucrative grants? You may self revert and add these refs if you wish, thanks mark nutley (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

it was agreed on weeks ago - you say that, and indeed you asserted as much in your edit comment, but so far you ahven't provided a link to this "agreement". Please do so William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can`t be bothered to actually read the section above with the wording thats` your problem, but regardless of that the text is reliably sourced and is a valid inclusion in this bio. Care to tell me why you reverted it for no good reason? mark nutley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're claiming a weeks-old consensus for inclusion, please point to the discussion where this occurs. Or withdraw the claim William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You commented in the thread william WMC, are you getting forgetful in your dotage? [1] The talk actually spread ocer a few sections but a consensus was formed. Now tell me why you think this reliably sourced text should have been reverted? mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, WMC has specifically asked to be referred to as William M. Connolley or WMC and several neutral administrators have expressed the position that people should honor his request. If you have a (reasonable) preference for how you would like him to address you feel free to express it. It serves no useful purpose to ignore his request so in the spirit of trying to raise the level of discourse please refactor your comment to address him properly and try to remember to do so moving forward. We all need to raise the level of our game. --GoRight (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression in was will he objected to? I`ll stick to wmc if the use of his christian name offends him as well though mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, as I've had cause to say to you before William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, you may refer to me by my full name also, thank you mark nutley (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave out the dotage crap please. No, there is no consensus in that section, indeed, there are people clearly disagreeing with you, and then the matter drops William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Get a sense of humour for gods sake :), As i said it ended up being dragged across several sections, if you can`t be arsed to look thats your problem. It does not matter now, i see the text has been put back along with some new refs so problem solved mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted this for the following reasons:

• The first sentece on TERI has not had any real following up. The telegraph makes some allegations, which subsequently hasn't been fleshed out - or in any way confirmed. Ie. WP:WEIGHT But there is a worse problem: It is the large WP:BLP violation to claim that it was because of the errors that Teri got grants - since it is 100% unsupported in the reference. The grants mentioned in the Telegraph aren't about Himalaya melt....
• Second sentence is also bad. It links to the WGI report - but the errors are in the WGII report. The sentence that "first he" but "later" is unsupported in the references given. (it was originally a synthesis the first time around - this time its completely unsupported and unreferenced). WP:V

I'm rather surprised that anyone would insert this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Removed Text

mark nutley (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The following text was in the article for a few weeks and was then removed without consensus. After reinsertion it was again removed on the grounds that the source was a blog, which was inaccurate as the source used was actually in The Telegraph.

The text which i feel should be reinserted as it certainly is an important aspect of this bio, and which follow on from this line,

Pachauri defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 before admitting that an error was made .

The following is the text which was removed and which i feel should be put back.

TERI won two research grants to study the implications of the erroneous prediction . Although Pachauri argued that there was probably only one error in the Fourth Assessment Reportby the IPCC, other errors were quickly found

 

References

Refs used are from

• Times of India

• CNN

• The Times

• The Telegraph

• Hindustan Times

Comments from uninvolved users

• The text should of course be in. That's why people started calling for Pachauri's resignation. No one disputes that TERI got these grants, and the EU call for proposals prominently refers to the IPCC on Himalayan glaciers. Leaving this out is just misinformation. 89.100.42.49 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) That was me. Richard Tol (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Responding to the RfC, I am inclined to think that the text should be readded, per Richard Tol, but that a more neutral, less accusatory wording should be found. I also think that --> "These mistakes led to some asking him to step down as head of the IPCC.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]" <-- having nine references here looks totally silly, and is obviously not neutral. Could we pare this back to the most important, say, three? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, I'm not so sure that the stuff about TERI belongs in there; I don't think pushing this conflict of interest stuff is consistent with the BLP policy. So I only think some more neutral version of the second sentence belongs. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, actually I can't make up my mind... Sorry. It's undeniable that the TERI stuff has been a big part of the controversy, but I'm struggling to get past my bias for not including recent news. If we're going to cover this at all, then perhaps the TERI stuff is just a piece of it that can't be omitted in order for the whole story to make sense, and perhaps Richard Tol is right. I'll have to declare myself as undecided on everything other than the removal of the six of the nine references (I have removed last six from the list of nine from the text). Alex Harvey (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved users

• I've told you before but you just don't listen: [2] doesn't say what you think it does. In particular, it doesn't show RKP defending 2035. Until you correct basic trivial errors like this, the text should stay out, and you should find an arera to edit that you understand William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Criticizing as "voodoo science" a report which countered the claims made by the IPCC is most certainly defending the mistake mark nutley (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Nope, that it blatant OR and SYN. Apart from anything else, your timeline is wrong. Face it, you really don't know what is going on here but are determined to push your POV anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should point out were the timeline is wrong instead of calling me clueless? Here`s how i read it, IPCC publish AR4 with mistakes all over it, The 2035 date gets pointed out as wrong but pachauri continues to use it for cop15, indian release report which contradicts IPCC claims, pachauri calls it "voodoo science", care to point out were this is actually wrong instead of just making pointless assertions? mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  @WMC: Please don't call other editors Clueless as you did in the edit comment here. Please assume WP:AGF as I've pointed out here. I'm getting clueless about your unreferenced claims about OR, SYN, "timeline is wrong" and "push your POV". Nsaa (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC needs to be admonished for making personal attacks. Some degree of this is amusing but aside from proving that his views are not objective, he has crossed a line of that Wikipedians should not tolerate if they are worth their salt. Especially Wikipedians who buttress their edits by claiming they are acting according to policy. Steve Harnish (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The so-called "report" is a "MOEF Discussion Paper" (pdf) by the retired "V.K. Raina,Ex. Deputy Director, General Geological Survey of India, published by the Ministry of Environment & Forests on 9 November 2009. In a Nature.com blog, Quirin Schiermeier (who is the author of reports published in the journal) interviewed Lonnie Thompson who said "First and foremost this is not a peer reviewed report and nothing scientific can be claimed based on 25 glaciers out of over 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas and 46,300 in the Himalayas and Tibetan region.... if Jairam Ramesh can write up these results showing just how he came to his conclusion for a quality peer reviewed journal then he should do so. Otherwise the report certainly does not challenge the conventional wisdom." Several sources say that Pachauri called claims made about the discussion paper "voodoo science", it's not clear when he said that and I've found no evidence that he was talking about the 2035 date. Since the discussion paper called for further investigation of glaciers, it's hardly a conspiracy by Pachauri to get more work for Indian scientists, and the recently announced research body appears to be under the environment ministry run by Pachauri's vocal critic. Your news statement is out of date, only one significant error by the IPCC has been found in AR4, which is the glacier statement in the WG2 "impacts" report. No errors have been found in the science about glaciers in the WG1 report. I'll add the reflist template to display the citations properly – oh look, there's a blog, and an opinion column by the notorious Christopher Booker! . . dave souza, talk 11:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC) – reflist not working very well, should we archive discussions up to and including the previous reflist or has anyone got a better idea? . . dave souza, talk 11:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Not sure why you are focusing on this not being a peer reviewed journal, this is not a scientific article. Pachauri called the guys work voodoo science, hence it`s request for inclusion. There have been far more than one mistake in AR4, for instance the amazon rainforest mistake, the african crop yields mistake, and there are plenty more. Your point about oh look, there's a blog is irrelevent it is in the telegraph and as such is wp:rs with regards to the ref list i`d go with archiving the previous stuff to tidy the page up. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an article about science, NPOV applies. It's a biography of a living person, and blogs are unsuitable as sources on BLPs. Your list includes things that aren't mistakes, and aren't directly Pachauri's responsibility hence not something for this article. More detail is necessary about when Pachauri made the remark, and the circumstances. Part of which is the correct expert assessment at the time that the discussion paper was insufficient to challenge the conventional wisdom. What didn't seem to be realised at the time was that while the WG1 report on glaciers was good, the paragraph in the WG2 report was bad. . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits

More of the human toll surrounding this "science" - and the corrupting influence of the money involved - from Investors Business Daily (opinion piece) 3/4/2010 Junk Science Begets Junk Lawsuits Steve Harnish (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Calls for resignation

The old text had that some journalists and environmentalists had called for Pachauri's resignation. This is just not true, so I added academics and politicians. Richard Tol (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You need better refs. I took them out (BLP) pending that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently this section says "some environmentalists and newspapers asked him to step down as head of the IPCC" which seems to be encouraging the identification of specific groups of people that have asked him to stand down; "some environmentalists, zoroastrians, Nepalese goatherds, backstroke swimmers, left-handers and newspapers asked him to step down as head of the IPCC"

Can't we just say "some asked him to step down as head of the IPCC"? There are references to indicate who. Thepm (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We should also say that the calls were a frothy response to the so-called climategate and have now gone away. Or better, realise that this was all froth and should not have been in the article in the first place, or now William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your 'crusty academic' lessons are paying dividends :) Given that it is in the article, are you happy for me to make the change indicated? Otherwise I will have to start researching the views of Nepalese goatherds. Thepm (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC that at this point we should realize (pending changing coverage), that it was an overreaction. The calls for resignation, was mostly from a small minority, with no real influence on whether it would happen or not. Given that forcing Pachauri's resignation, would require that the governments, who's mandate he is care-taking, retracted their approval, and that none of these have uttered a peep - it should either be removed or made clear that these were from a small minority. As it stands right now, it makes a mountain out of a molehill.

If we keep then my suggestion would be to change it to ".. some individual calls ..." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, some of the cited objections are part of Indian politics, and we should also note that the government of India subsequently reaffirmed its support for Pachauri. . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As it stood, the article referred to environmentalist and newspapers, and cited a journalist and a politician. I put in a second politician for balance -- it now cites a politician who is left of centre (Samson) and one who is right of centre (Barroso). I used Grassl as an example of an academic, because he is arguable most senior as a former director of research at the WMO, one of the mother organizations of the IPCC. Alternatively, one could cite the current director the Leibnitz society. That would be a recent citation, taking away William's inaccurate assertion that people have changed their mind. It would be another citation in German, which is pertinent because German-speaking countries currently fund two-thirds of the IPCC. Richard Tol (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the politicians are on the left or the right. What matters is that the calls for Pachauri's resignation haven't been substantial - in fact they have been quite few, and none of them have been from anyone who matters in the question on Pachauri's position. If the calls had been followed and not, as it seems, generally been forgotten or ignored - then there may have been something in it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I added "left of centre" because William argues, incorrectly, that only right of centre politicians have called for his resignation implying, equally incorrectly, that the views of right wing politicians are irrelevant.

What proof do you have that people have forgotten the calls for resignation? Richard Tol (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a tough call to say that people have forgotten about it, but it certainly appears to have dropped off the MSM radar for the time being.

I have boldly changed the text to read "some asked him to step down as head of the IPCC". I think it reads better and I don't see the point in listing individuals or sets of individuals that may have asked. Thepm (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer "some individuals", since that is more accurate. As it stands (with just "some") we have little idea as to how serious or how numerous the calls where. It is rather important that we don't make it into a coatrack. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly minor point and one that might be dropped altogether in a few months time if nothing more comes of it. In the meantime, it should be as short and succinct as possible without losing meaning. Basically we are saying "After <event> some people said he should resign, he said no."

Currently it reads

Following the retraction of a paragraph in the IPCC AR4 working group II report which said that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035, some asked him to step down as head of the IPCC, but he rejected these calls.

Can I change this to

Following the retraction of a projection regarding glacier melt in the IPCC AR4 working group II report, there were some calls for him to step down as head of the IPCC, but he has rejected these calls.

Thepm (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Some" is fine. "Some individuals" is wrong, as some spoke on behalf of their organization. I would drop "Following ... report," As it stands, the sentence suggests that people want Pachauri to resign over the Himalaya error. I do not think that that is true, and it is certainly not the reason why Bengtsson, Grassl, Pielke, Storch and I called for his resignation. Richard Tol (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. So you're not entirely happy. KDP's not entirely happy. Neither of you are hopping mad. Sounds like I've got it about right. I'll make the change. Thepm (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Order of the White Rose of Finland

An addition to the awards and recognitions section notes that Pachauri was awarded the "Order of the White Rose of Finland". The addition appears to have been lifted from a TERI press release including the grammatical errors found there. I've cleaned it up a bit and asked for a citation. I've assumed that the TERI press release would not be an acceptable citation? Or would it? Thepm (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just realised that the anon editor that made this change has made many other additions/changes, most of them unreferenced and some of them of errrm, dubious notability. I'm not going to say that Pachauri's not a fine medium-fast bowler, but I would suggest that the relevance of this is peripheral at best. Thepm (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Order of the White Rose. There’s this from the web site of the Finish Embassy in New Delhi. But, it’s a “Google cache” and I don’t have enough computer savvy to know how to make that work as a ref.--CurtisSwain (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that there's no news reports of this. It's also odd that it's not in the Finish Embassy's archive.

Anyway, I've requested citations for a number of the awards and recognitions that have been added and deleted the references to Pachauri's cricketing exploits. Thepm (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

IPCC Retraction

(outdent)The retraction was made after errors were disclosed. Why was this text removed from the article? It is correct, and supported by sources. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I noted it specifically in my edit-comment. Do please read it. Do also please read the various discussions on this page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you believe it should be singular? So sources detailing multiple errors would negate your concern? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Of which there are plenty, i am unsure why kim continues to say the ar4 report only had one error when there have been multipile errors found mark nutley (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark and FellGleaming, you seem to be in error. Again. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple errors indeed. The IPCC have admitted to a minority only, but still more than one. Richard Tol (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New ref

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/04/pachauri_responds_to_allegatio_1.html William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology from Telegraph

Tata- an Apology - Telegraph. As suggested at UK Telegraph retracts and apologies for bogus Tata story, but doesn’t apologize to Pachauri for smear « Climate Progress, two of the stories used as links are not available at the Telegraph's website, and appear to have been withdrawn. On that basis I've deleted the unsupported allegations. Other stories appear to be unaffected, and I've modified the paragraph to keep the allegations still supported by them in the article. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Extremely embarrasing - and something to remember when Booker and North again are being claimed as reliable sources. Some people here should have very red ears. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) [double up for North, who was also the source for the, now retracted as well, amazongate thing --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)]

An interesting piece here from George Monbiot, covering this fiasco. I've amended the "controversies" section to include some material from this, as well as revising it a bit. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Is the current make up of that section acceptable? It is written from teh "history" way - allegation, refutation. Arguably it should be written "Unsubstantiated allegations were made that were later retracted" way William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this raises a BLP red flag so I've introduced an introductory clause noting that these are false allegations. I've sourced that to a news article by Monbiot and James Randerson. . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While I think the Telegraph apology is relevant and deserves to be discussed, I don't think it eliminates the controversy or in itself makes the allegations false as a point of fact. In order to do that, this section must clearly and succinctly lay out the allegations and refute them and *both* those tasks need to be supported by citations. As evidenced by the discussions on this page, what the allegations actually consisted of and whether they were refuted are still disputed. We should therefore all work together to improve the entry and let it speak for itself. Akumabarai (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IAC Review of IPCC

Should this be discussed? I put this as an additional paragraph: [3]. William thinks this summary is too biased. Everything I said comes directly from the article, which is Agence France-Presse. By now there are many other articles commenting on it (BBC, etc). Everything I've seen makes mention of conflicts of interest, so it seems relevant, but I don't want to just go back and forth undo-ing everything, so what do other people think? Can anyone write their own summary based on this and other sources? [4] Unless there is a consensus that it is irrelevant to Pachauri controversies, *something* should be said. Akumabarai (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph restored and expanded. Please feel free to improve and discuss. 99.232.49.164 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

UN climate panel Revert Discussion

Will this [5] be discussed as WMC's sanctions require. It was quickly reverted. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that sanction has expired mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well WP:REVERT then, "but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter." Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I await your reaction to [6] then William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Really. Do you consider the original edit[7] (that to use your words "keen jerk" removed) to be made in bad faith? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue, I put my comment on it in a new section, not having seen this section. Anyway, see above. Akumabarai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Why don't you all wait a few days at least and allow the IPCC and other interested observers to comment on the impact and meaning of the IAC report before adding anything on it to this article. Remember, we're supposed to treat BLPs with kid gloves. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Financial Anomalies

I have just removed a sentence from the "controversies" section claiming that an independent review by KPMG had cleared TERI of any financial anomolies, citing the FT as a source. This was completely inaccaurate. TERI instructed KPMG to produce a report to demonstrate that any consultancy fees from banks, oil companies, car manufacturers etc.. were paid to TERI and not directly to Pachauri personally. This they did. That was as far as the report went, which is clear if you read the FT article. I have no doubt someone will stick the claim that it has "cleared" TERI of wrongdoing back in again, but anyway, we persevere for truth. --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reintroduced it with the inserted "with regards to financial irregularities" - the sentence wasn't about TERI, but about Pachauri. TERI may have done, or be allegated of doing, lots of bad things - but that is not what the sentence was about. Stuff about TERI would/should be in the TERI article. We need the information in some form, if the section is to adhere to NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What Kim said and did makes sense to me.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to me. "Financial irregularities" and "potential conflict of interest" seem completely independent, so what he is cleared of is not very related to the initial accusation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t believe anyone has said or implied that KPMG’s findings are related to any "potential conflict of interest." Currently, the "Controversy" section contains only 4 sentences. The first mentions "potential conflict of interest", the second: “alleged financial anomalies”, and the third is KPMG’s findings “with regards to financial irregularities.” It’s just a logical progression. If some more information comes out about the "potential conflict of interest," it could then be inserted between the 1st and 2nd sentences.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, the review by KPMG was not "independent", it was commisioned and paid for by TERI. Secondly, it was specifically to do whether monies were paid to Pachauri directly or TERI. It in no way "cleared" Pachauri or TERI of financial irregularites, it only stated that monies for Pachauri's consultation work were paid to TERI (and were therefore tax free due to TERI's non- profit status.) This has always been known and in no way clears Pachauri or TERI of much larger financial irregularites which have not been addressed. At the moment the statement about "clearing" Pachauri is grossly inaccurate and misleading. --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

To CurtisSwain; if it's not related to the above accusation, it shouldn't be here. Or, is this person so ethically challenged that his not committing financial irregularities is notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left the re-insertion by Kim D. Petersen, but have removed the word "independent." --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Independent is what the article says. Its not something for us to detemine. There is way way way too much WP:OR going on here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The KPMG audit is just a smokescreen. The "conflict of interest" charge was that Pachauri used his position in the IPCC to get money to TERI. KPMG confirmed that the money went to TERI. The "financial anomalies" are for TERI Europe, and not covered the KPMG investigation. Richard Tol (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Curtis Swain has reverted my edit. As it stood, the sentence suggests that the KPMG audit has cleared Pachauri of all allegations. In fact, it only states that the payments were made to TERI. The revision that I put in made that clear. I reverted back to the accurate sentence. Richard Tol (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't state that Pachauri has been cleared "of all allegations" - it says specifically that he has been cleared of financial anomalies. You are using the sentence to allude towards other things - and that is not acceptable under BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"just a smokescreen" - erm? A bit too involved/POV isn't it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, please read the article in the FT. The KPMG was very limited in scope. The text should reflect that.

I think that it is a smokescreen, because it clears Pachauri of something he was not accused of, while it does not clear him of things he stands accused of. Richard Tol (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri is not "accused" of anything. Booker and others have alluded to something which is quite unspecified. There is no criminal investigations, nor any serious suspicion of any wrongdoings. Your "smokescreen" comment is one of POV , and that is not something that we as WP editors at any point should engage in.

Since it is, and always has been, quite in the open that Pachauri is drawing a wage/working for/sitting on the board of various companies, the only serious COI here would be if he personally has gains/income that is undisclosed - and that is what the KPMG investigation was about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you may want to read the CoI policies of the WMO and UNEP, the mother organisations of the IPCC. Richard Tol (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all clear, at least from the text here, that the "financial irregularities" of which he was cleared by the audit are related to the "financial irregularities" he that he was alleged to be involved in. From what we have here, the rational interpretation would be that they are completely different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The current sentence is accurate but not very clear. To recap, there are three allegations: (1) Pachauri uses his IPCC chair to raise money for TERI (which constitutes a conflict of interest under WMO and UNEP guidelines); (2) Pachauri has a remarkably lavish lifestyle; (3) there are anomalies in the finances of TERI Europe. The KPMG review found that Toyota, Deutsche Bank etc transferred Pachauri's advisory fees to TERI India. KPMG therefore did not take away any of the concerns raised. Richard Tol (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all references to the word "cleared." It is not factual, and hardly NPOV. The current reading reflects the facts, and not the spin. --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? Cleared is certainly factual here (and attributed). That is exactly the wording that the secondary reliable source uses. You are letting your personal POV interfere i suspect. (do please read WP:NPOV, as i suspect you have it wrong - NPOV is not "equal time", but "present in the way that secondary reliable sources do". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The word “cleared” is certainly not factual, as it does not apply to the accusations contained in the previous paragraph, instead it refers to a non-accusation as to whether monies were paid to Pachauri directly, or to his tax free company (TERI India) which does not publish accounts. This was not one of the accusations contained above in the “controversies” sections, as all the reports quoted made it clear that all monies were paid to TERI India. To include the term “cleared” as used in the FT report in this way is extremely misleading, as it suggests that Pachauri had been cleared of the accusations above, which is certainly not the case. And it does not seem good enough to say; “we know it is misleading, but the FT published it so it must be OK.” As to the KPMG report itself, it has not been made available, as far as I am aware, and it seems that the reports are based on quotes from Pachauri himself, rather than the KPMG review. Hardly compelling. If you can send me a link to the KPMG review please do. I have been unable to find anyone who has read it, including the journalists writing the “Pachuari cleared” story.--Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is all fine and nice. But we aren't here to do original research or to satisfy your personal insistence on evidence. The wording "cleared" is used by the Financial Times[8] (the one in the article), it is also used by the Press Trust of India[9], the Hindu[10], the Times of India[11]. Times Online[12] says " A KPMG report into his financial relationship with The Energy and Resources Institute concluded: “No evidence was found that indicated personal fiduciary benefits accruing to Dr Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest.”" (and the Deccan Herald copies this[13]).

So we can certainly be satisfied with the "cleared" wording, which is as well sourced (if not better) than the claims of a conflict of interest. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think evidence is pretty important. As an experienced Wikepidia editor maybe you can correct me on that. But, at any rate, referencing the same report cut and pasted by different papers is not evidence. Can you please paste up a reference to the original KPMG report? --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Can I suggest that it might be helpful to use an actual quotation from the article. The sentence currently says;

On 28 March 2010 the Financial Times reported that he had been cleared, with regards to personal financial irregularities in relation to his advisory work, by an independent review conducted by KPMG on behalf of TERI.

Perhaps it might read as;

On 28 March 2010 the Financial Times reported that he had been "cleared of allegations of financial irregularity by an independently conducted review". The review, conducted by KPMG on behalf of TERI, examined payments made by private sector companies and found that all payments were made paid to TERI itself.

Thepm (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good, Thepm. And to address Arthur's earlier concern ("Financial irregularities" and "potential conflict of interest" seem completely independent) perhaps we could rename the section "Controversies". --CurtisSwain (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The suggested sentences are readable and accurate. Controversies is better than controversy. Richard Tol (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed the text per above. Thepm (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above changes mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have ignited this again [14]. Sorry, I hadn't read this discussion. However, I'm not going to self-revert, but I won't object if any editor-of-good-faith does revert me. I don't think the refs to the "scandal" are good. If you're reduced to using the Torygraph and Booker [15] then you probably don't have a good source for the story at all. This discussion should be revived William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to gamble on being considered an editor-of-good-faith and revert :)

Per the above, the changes relied mainly on the FT article, not the Telegraph. Given that there was some disagreement over the usage of the word "cleared", I felt that it was best to use an actual quote from a RS to be clear (sorry) on what was really stated. Thepm (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the controversies section is written as NPOV (e.g. "false allegations"), but I have left as is because it is the matter of some dispute. Instead, I have only added information for clarification and provided citations. Please do not remove this information since I think it really is necessary to understanding the issue. The KMPG report is in no way "independent": it was done at the request of TERI, was limited to information provided by TERI and Pachauri, and did not constitute a full audit. In short, it was comissioned by and limited to information provided by the very objects of the allegations. You'd have to be nuts to think that constitutes an independent review capable of clearing all allegations of wrongdoing. Readers are entitled to know those facts and have a citation to the original source material. Akumabarai (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The KMPG report is in no way "independent" - says who? At the moment, only you; and you need a WP:RS, most especially in a WP:BLP. Readers are entitled to know those facts - um, at the moment, they aren't facts, they are your own opinion. and have a citation to the original source material - that is more useful, thank you. I took that out (because you were sourcing the wrong thing to it) but I'll add it back in William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi William - I hope we can resolve these differences and come to an agreement. I added a citation to the original KMPG report and I think that's an important source for the entry. I gather from your comment that you agree. Therefore, we only need to work out what the report says and what is relevant and should be discussed. I want two things included: 1) that the report was made by the request of TERI (see paragraph 1.1.5 of the report itself) and that the report was compiled with limited information, specifically only information provided by Pachauri, his tax counsel and TERI, the institute of which he is director general (see paragraph 6.1.1). Furthermore, it is misleading to call this report an audit or lead people to believe KPMG was acting in the capacity of auditors. I quote paragraph 6.1.3 of the report itself: "Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit." I also want to move forward, so please do not remove the sourced additions I make. If there is some disagreement as to what they say or whether they are relevant, we should work out the issues on this discussion page. I look forward to future discussion made with a mind to improving the article. Akumabarai (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The claim that this was not a 'full audit' is misleading, as such an audit would not be appropriate in such circumstances. There is a clear innuendo that KPMG took money to produce a meaningless piece of work. Instead they clearly set out the terms of the investigation, with the usual caveats, and as a consequence the Telegraph were persuaded by their lawyers to pay out a 'six figure sum'. I'm not an an auditor myself, although I've been involved in plenty - but here's an explanation from someone who is: [16]

Sorry if I've come to this late and someone else has already pointed out (I'm reading the thread from the beginning) but that disclaimer doesn't mean anything like what A Pedant seems to think it means. In a report like this "audit" has a specific meaning as defined in the Companies Act or sector-equivalent legislation. In most circumstances it means a review of financial reporting conducted in accordance with International Auditing Standards, or, again, the sector equivalent.These standards are unsuitable to work with this degree of specific focus because, for example, the fraud standard (ISA240) and evaluation standard (ISA450) will be too broad to allow for the presentation and investigation of meaningful results. Therefore it is standard in this type of report to clearly set out what the objectives and methods are (as KPMG do at sections 1.2 and 1.3) and, for the avoidance of doubt, also state clearly that these are the pertinent considerations and the full scope of auditing standards have not been applied - as they state at 6.1.3. That caveat does nothing to diminish the level of assurance that should be drawn from the work based on its scope and methods set out earlier. Dean Morrison (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dean - I'll start by saying that I have no problems with the additions you made to the article. I'm not an expert on accounting either, but the reason why I thought it was misleading to call the report an audit was because there are alleged financial anomalies with TERI Europe and this report was not concerned with those allegations. Instead, the report was strictly used to rebut the innuendo that Pachauri was personally enriched. I don't think the report was "a meaningless piece of work", although they certainly did take money to produce it and the report was obviously used in a political manner. What the report clearly does not do is clear Pachauri of all potential conflict of interest, which is the substance of the allegations. Indeed, the report confirms the existence of these relationships. Further to that discussion, I'd point to the guidelines of the US National Academy of Sciences:

The term "conflict of interest" applies not only to the personal financial interests of the individual but also to the interests of others with whom the individual has substantial common financial interests if these interests are relevant to the functions to be performed. Thus, in assessing an individual's potential conflicts of interest, consideration must be given not only to the interests of the individual but also to the interests of the individual's spouse and minor children, the individual's employer, the individual's business partners, and others with whom the individual has substantial common financial interests. Consideration must also be given to the interests of those for whom one is acting in a fiduciary or similar capacity (e.g., being an officer or director of a corporation, whether profit or nonprofit, or serving as a trustee). Akumabarai (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Akumabari - If there are allegations about financial improprieties in TERI Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, Wiki is not an appropriate place to publish them unless they can be substantiated. TERI referred to these matters in their letter to the Telegraph, and since the Telegraph have withdrawn the article and issued an apology, that should be the end of the matter. [17] As for your claim that the report was used in a 'political manner' what do you mean by this, and how do you justify such a statement? Do you considering clearing your name of false allegations to be political? If those allegations were politically motivated, does defending yourself against them automatically become a political act?

As for conflict of interest - you seem to be widening the definition, and forgetting that traditionally we assume someone to be innocent until proven guilty. Unless you can point to evidence of Pachauri's guilt, I think this is the end of the matter. You may not judge that the review clears Pachauri of all 'potential' conflicts of interest - but it is not the duty of any individual to commission expensive and wide ranging reports that clear them of any wrongdoing whatsoever, even potential wrongdoing. Think about it, and consider the possibility that Pachauri might just be innocent of any charges, and the victim of a smear campaign because of his role as chair of the IPCC.Dean Morrison (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not widening the definition, I am pointing out that under a reasonable, relevant and widely held conception, the definition is broader than merely having a personal pecuniary interest. As for "innocent until proven guilty", that is a somewhat rhetorical comment and I do not believe it accurately describes WP:BPL. The issue here is conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. I think at minimum the latter is a serious issue and should be addressed by this article in a neutral manner that informs readers and allows them to draw their own conclusions. I do think the Telegraph story and apology are part of that story, but they aren't the end of it. When I say that the report was used in a political manner, I mean that there is a political issue (who should chair the IPCC, whether the current chair's business interests are appropriate for his position, etc) and a stakeholder (Pachauri) that produced and used the report to resolve the issue in his favour. I consider this to be obvious and true whatever you think of the validity and substance of the original allegations.

While I certainly appreciate your comments and perspective, I'd like to move forward with improvement to the article with first resolving to everyone's satisfaction the complex and nuanced issues involving politics and climate science. I am going to reverse the previous deletion of the paragraph on the IAC report because I still think it is relevant to the controversy. Please help me by expanding it with sourced information you think is important and feel free to rewrite my work to make it more neutral and less biased if you feel there is a need (just please don't delete it). 99.232.49.164 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Akumabarai, although the report is of course worthy of mention, I think your contribution was factually incorrect, and was based on your point of view. For one thing, if you read the report itself, you will see that it was at the invitation of Pachauri himself, and not simply 'UN ordered' as you stated. Since the report was not into any potential conflict of interest by Dr Pachauri, it is not clear how it could have been in response to his supposed 'conflicts of interest. Another valid POV would be to protect Pachauri and future incumbents form malicious claims of conflict of interest. Adoption of a specific policy on the issue would be sensible step to do that. Please try again to offer a more balanced contribution as a starting point, and I'll agree not to delete, but to offer constructive edits.Dean Morrison (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the report is worthy of mention and welcome your contributions and suggestions. If there is something in my report that is factually incorrect, you should fix it and provide a citation. Everything in my contribution is cited and comes from those citations. I added detail to say that Ban Ki-Moon ordered the review. If this was done at the initiation or invitation or Pachauri himself, please provide the citation (I've looked at the report and see nothing there). Obvious the report may deserve its own article or an expanded section in the IPCC article. Once that is done, we can link to that page. That certainly is a valid point of view and I welcome your expansion on that line. Many others take a different point of view, so if you think this needs exposition, we can both work together along those lines. Akumabarai (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Another editor feels the contribution read better as originally written (re: "UN-ordered" vs. "ordered by Ban Ki-Moon"), so I will defer to their judgment. I've added the discussion provided by the report itself, which is undoubtedly more valuable than any other POV we could have discussed. I also consider the quotation as a definitive statement regarding the IAC report's relevance to this controversy. Akumabarai (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Akumbarai - you didn't check the facts, and clearly didn't read the report. The original request to the IAC was made jointly by Pachauri and Ban Ki Moon and as is shown in their jointly signed letter in the appendix [18], and makes no mention that this is in response that this is in response to concerns about Pachauri's supposed 'conflicts of interest'. As an additional point of information the report cites the now discredited Brooker and North article in the Telegraph as their source for supposed concerns about 'conflict of interest' so they were responding to incorrect information."Questions about potential conflicts of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s service as an advisor to, and board member of, for-profit energy companies (Booker and North, 2009; ...The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review". Since your contribution continues to have errors of fact regarding who commissioned the report and why, and POV regarding the reasons why it was commissioned it should not stand. I repeat my previous offer to you that I will contribute to a factually correct and neutral version if you can offer that as starting point. In the meantime your contribution looks like an attempt to tarnish the man's reputation, so I'll undo, sorry.Dean Morrison (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You can write your own summary and we can discuss (see [19]). I think the quotation from the review is highly relevant and should stay in whatever version you produce. I also think you should make use of my two sources (AFP and ABC news), both entirely acceptable. Please put your efforts into making a meaningful contribution rather than simply trying to shut discussion down. Akumabarai (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The IAC passage is too large for a BLP of this size. It would be helpful if editors provide a more detailed description of this one recommendation and its relevance to Pachauri under the present circumstances. Wikispan (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Akumabarai - the means of discussion should not be for me to re-write your work, which contains major factual inaccuracies, and your point of view, that is why Wiki has a 'talk' page. Try to contribute a factually accurate summary of the report, and who commissioned it, without your POV. As to why this should appear in the section 'controversies' about Pachauri's alleged conflict of interest, since the report explicitly states it is not concerned with such matters, I fail to see it's relevance here. Undo Dean Morrison (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dean, we're in an edit war here and it's unproductive. Let's work together to resolve this dispute. While we do so, I would appreciate it if you focused your comments on the work and not me personally. Please assume good faith on my part and I'll do the same on yours. I suggest we start by having you restate the criticisms so I can understand and address your concerns. These are the issues I'm detecting that are concrete:

1) Do you agree that the IAC report is relevant to the controversies discussed in the article?

2) What are all the factual inaccuracies that are unsupported by the cited news articles?

3) What are examples of biased phrasing and alternative ways to phrase things that would be more neutral? Akumabarai (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikispan, it would be better to summarize it, but as the issue is so contentious, I thought its full statement might alleviate concerns about NPOV. Akumabarai (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reproducing the recommendation at length is no substitute for descriptive text. This shouldn't be too difficult. Wikispan (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Akumumbarai, it does seem we are engaged in an edit war, and I'm afraid you have given me reason to doubt your good faith. I pointed out to you that Pachauri himself had called for the IAC report, however you have not corrected this in your statement. Actually, no I don't now think the IAC report is relevant to the controversies in this section. If there is a seperate Wiki article about that report it would be fair to point out that the complaints of alleged conflict of interest referred to were those of Brooker and North, and these have now been withdrawn and apologised for by the newspaper that carried them.

I suggest that the entire section could be re-written in terms of the clear evidence for a [smear campaign] against Dr Pachaudri. I consider your attempts to frame the IAC report as being proof of Pachaudri's conflict of interest as looking very much like an attempt to perpetuate these smears. In the meantime unless you can contribute a factually correct and neutral contribution, I will continue to undo. Sorry. Dean Morrison (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed para

Given this is a BLP etc, and the disputed para [20] concerns a recent event, I think it is better to sort this out on talk first. Edit summaries like "Restored paragraph. In order to stop this edit war, please work with me to come to a consensus on the discussion page" aren't good. Please don't revert and try to put the onus on the other side to talk first. Also, I note that User:Akumabarai has done nothing but edit this article since April.

As to the substance: I think the disputed para is biased, being only negative. Compare it to the more reasonable text at International_Panel_on_Climate_Change#InterAcademy_Council_review William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any way to positively spin the issue. I don't think the IPCC's own view of independent criticism of them can in any way, shape, or form be considered unbiased. I think the current version of the paragraph bends over backwards to be fair and neutral. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being careless again, just as you were on Mann. No-one is trying to spin this, and I've no idea why you're talking about "I don't think the IPCC's own view of independent criticism of them..." - why is that relevant. But the IPCC article says 'The IAC found that, "The IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.", which is a quote from IAC, not the IPCC - did you fail to read that properly? By including only negative information, the current para can't be considered fair, let alone "bending over backwards" to be fair - that seems an obviously unsustainable interpretation William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Making personal attacks (i.e. "you're being careless") is inappropriate and veers towards bullying. As for onus, my contribution is sourced and provides valid information, the onus should be on those trying to delete it, especially when there is no consensus on bias. Please focus only on the work and try to make positive contributions. I did not include the IAC's comments about the IPCC in general, only what they say about its leadership. You are welcome to make any additions you feel are relevant to either the discussed controversy, to Pachauri himself or his position. I also welcome your answers to the three questions I outlined above. Akumabarai (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

William, you'd have a lot better luck convincing us you're interested in a neutral representation of the incident if you'd stop the blind deletions of mentions of it. Can you please identifically specifically what you consider problematic, rather than merely regurgitating "its biased" ? How exactly do you believe its biased? Fell Gleaming^talk 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed you towards the IPCC page, which does indeed have a neutral version. Have you looked at that yet? As for biased - if you can't see that a version including only criticism, from a report that starts with a positive commendation, isn't biased then - you have a problem. As for the carelessness - looks like a pattern to me. FG made similar errors at the Michael Mann (scientist) article. Here, he has written I don't think the IPCC's own view of independent criticism of them can in any way, shape, or form be considered unbiased - what relevance has that to the current discussion? None at all as far as I can see William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC, why did you revert my change with the statement to "please discuss on talk first", when I specifically did just that? Furthermore, the "praise" in the report is very faint, not noteworthy, and certainly doesn't belong in a "controversy" section. By your logic, we should list criticisms of Pachauri in a section on his commendations and awards. The onus on a section entitled "controversy" is for a neutral statement of the controversies ... not a slavish demand that we must numerically balance every critical statement with one of praise.

William, the bias of the relevant section of the IPCC page is also currently disputed and you've done heavy editing there, too, so that argument is circular. I'd also note that the section currently says nothing about the recommendation of adopting a polcy regarding conflict of interests, which is a grevious oversight. I've re-written the paragraph in a good faith effort to move forward. I understand that the quote is long, but I think it's valid especially given concerns about NPOV (summarizing would be frought with the same issues). However, I welcome good faith attempts to summarize it. FellGleaming, I appreciate your edits and contributions, but I think the full paragraph is better than the shortered version because it notes that the controversial issue is beyond its scope of review. Akumabarai (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've now broken 3RR. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dean's already reverted. I've requested meditation for the dispute and won't add anything until that process is resolved. Akumabarai (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

More: William - please see [[]]. the bias of the relevant section of the IPCC page is also currently disputed - no idea what you mean by this. There is no circular argument. Your "rewrite" [21] changes nothing substantial, and leaves the bias intact William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, has your 1X reversion probation on CC articles expired? Fell Gleaming^talk 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? If that is a question for one particular editor, you should place it on their talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

William, you've accused me here -- not on my talk page -- of "being careless" and "making edits without discussing them on talk first". I'm replying to your statements here, and further asking you if your 1RR probation has expired, given you've twice reverted the same content within 24 hours. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot

George Monbiot is already the source of much of the material in this article. Is it really helpful to add his own personal, unsupported speculation on a "smear campaign" against Pachauri? Fell Gleaming^talk 20:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources have been used in this article, Monbiot is a reporter who has paid particular attention to the details of the investigation and context, and his views are significant as well as fully meeting BLP requirements. His statements are supported by references to specific instances of false claims being repeated, and so I've rephrased the paragraph to point to them rather than a generalised smear campaign, as well as moving it to a more logical sequence in the article. . dave souza, talk 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

State of Texas lawsuit says IPCC findings are thoroughly discredited

... and the EPA rules based on them are bizarre. Of course this will be disputed by the perpetrators of the global warming hoax, but here's the story

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=7606198

Cheers Steve Harnish (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong page. Any reason not to archive this offtopic rant? . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, let it sit. It's off-topic, and not directly applicable to any article on Wikipedia, as anyone can file a lawsuit, but some would complain of censorship if it were archived. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it off topic if Pachauri is head of the IPCC and corruption and junk science in the global-arming agenda is at the center of the debate? By the way, the State of Texas isn't just anybody. "Some would claim of censorship" - well, check the Wikipedia guidelines re weasel words. Steve Harnish (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect - Dave again invokes "the rules" to defend his turf - while he's clever enough to bend them when it suite his purpose. Whoever say Wikipedia is object is deceived - it's run by control freaks who believe their efforts will influence the public debate. Steve Harnish (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a rather lengthy chain from the Texas suit back to Pachauri. You might make it stretch as far as the IPCC article itself, but it clearly doesn't belong here. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri is chair of the IPCC Steve Harnish (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

IPCC Official states climate motivation is redistribution of wealth

Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:16 Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html Cheers. Steve Harnish (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good interview. And how are you proposing to improve this article with it?--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

His carbon footprint

We should mention that he is hypocritical in wanting other to change their travel methods to help the planet. While he take a private jet to India for a cricket match.

Suggest we put this under controversy.Basil rock (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. You would need a reliable source that shows a notable person or organization has made this criticism, and it would have to be done within BLP guidelines. --CurtisSwain (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not an oppinion its a fact http://www.climatechangedispatch.com//enviro-extremists/6304-rajendra-pachauri-head-of-un-climate-change-panel-clocks-up-half-a-million-miles-of-air-travelBasil rock (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything in that article about a "private jet" or a "cricket match." But, it is a critique of Pachauri that does present some facts about the number of flights taken and air miles traveled by Pachauri, and how much carbon dioxide this likely generated. These could be considered pertinent facts. However, whether this behavior is hypocritical or ironic, tragic or comical is a matter of subjective opinion. Still, you appear to have an WP:RS, but I'd use the original Telegraph article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts

Dr. P may be out of a job soon - unless he can find a way to make money for his sponsors out of this new development. Sydney Morning Herald: "The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun." http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/theres-a-mini-ice-age-coming-says-man-who-beats-weather-experts-20101221-1945a.html Cheers. Steve Harnish (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL! So, in what way is this fringe proponent significant to Pachauri? Remember, no original research. . . 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is Pachauri/global warming "science" that is the fringe. (see below) Steve Harnish (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: "Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade. ... heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age. The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. " http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ Steve Harnish (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

NASA reminds: The Sunspot Cycle (Updated 2011/06/01) http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml Steve Harnish (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

El Reg is rubbish, the NASA info makes no mention of Pachauri. You appear to be on the wrong page, probably on the wrong project. . dave souza, talk 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Global warming proponents say hot summer is from global warming

It's Hotter Than It Used to Be; It's Not as Hot as It's Going to Be

"Global warming is causing or worsening some of the extreme weather we're seeing. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/its-hotter-than-it-used-t_b_906242.html Steve Harnish (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/ Steve Harnish (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Not a reliable source, and makes not mention of Rajendra K. Pachauri so is offtopic anyway. "The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23." . . dave souza, talk 03:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ROTFL! Not a scientist at all. This guy had various qualifications, none in climate science, and was hired by the Australian Greenhouse Office as a contract programmer to work on emissions accounting software. That was a while ago - he's now a freelance consultant IIRC.JQ (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! You've been found out! Rajendra K. Pachauri is a railway man with a vested interest in helping Indian Railways to compete. Santamoly (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

It's all about the money:

"Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years. So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years ... It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution. ... The press release for the report discusses the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.” That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion Steve Harnish (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.23 (talk) That was me - logged in now. Steve Harnish (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave Sousa has no right to arbitrarily remove posts from the Talk page. This is not the Article page. Steve Harnish (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha! Just like the Global Warming email scam! More Global Warming skullduggery! Santamoly (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2015

Pachauri became a Member of the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change in 2007. He resigned from the Council on 28th February 2015 consequences of ongoing police probe. 202.41.10.21 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Tata Energy Research Institute

How about some line or two or three about Pachauri's role in The Energy and Resources Institute, also known as TERI (formerly Tata Energy Research Institute) in New Delhi? We do see in the article a link to TERI University. MaynardClark (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)