Compare Pachauri’s total earnings to the kind of money made by the head of any of the UN agencies, or of the World Bank or the IMF, and you’ll see that he receives one-fifth or one-tenth of the cash raked in by his peers.
“No evidence was found that indicated personal fiduciary benefits accruing to Pachauri from his various advisory roles that would have led to a conflict of interest.”
The Sunday Telegraph, in other words, maligned a scrupulously honest man.
How could the newspaper have got it so wrong? Was it because neither the journalists, nor anyone else at the paper, contacted Pachauri to check their claims?(2)
When Pachauri approached the Sunday Telegraph, asking for a retraction, he was rebuffed. Far worse, the journalists continued the attack in a series of further articles and blogposts(3). To me it look as if Richard North was pursuing a vendetta against the IPCC chair. In a post in February, he wrote:
“Pachauri is on the ropes but he ain’t down yet. The view is it will take one more ‘killer blow’ to fell him .. and it looks as if its been found! … R K Pachauri needs to be acquainted with the first rule of politics – DFWN … since it is a family blog, you’ll have to work it out for yourselves.”(4)
The abbreviation stands for “Don’t fuck with North”. In truth Pachauri had done no such thing: he had merely asked, politely and mildly, for the false allegations to be corrected.
I need to find out about this Richard North character, he seems like an British Andrew Bolt or something. Facts are only Facts when they are HIS Facts.