Former UN climate change chief to face trial for sexual harassment of employees
A court in Delhi has ruled that Rajendra Pachauri, the former chairman of a Nobel prize-winning UN panel on climate change, will stand trial on charges of stalking and sexual harassment of a former employee.
A 29-year-old former employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), based in the Indian capital, filed a police report against Pachauri last year. She said Pachauri, who led the organisation, had made inappropriate advances soon after she joined in 2013.
Earlier this year police filed 1,400 pages of evidence, including text messages and emails from Pachauri, and testimony from 23 witnesses, many of them Teri employees. Judge Shivani Chauhan said the evidence was sufficient to proceed with the trial.
“There are allegations against the accused that he made sexually coloured remarks upon the complainant on several occasions,” she said. “He touched the complainant inappropriately, despite a clear expression of disapproval from her side. He also sent inappropriate SMS and WhatsApp messages to the complainant.”
Pachauri, 75, will have to appear in court in person on 11 July to apply for bail. It is unlikely he will be imprisoned at this stage of the proceedings.…
New Climate Scandal called ‘worse than Climategate’ – New Emails Released! ‘Clear conspiracy to avoid FOIA, use public money’ – Top UN Scientist, U.S. Senator entangled
Warmist scientists including UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth to Obama: ‘We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.
#
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) prevailed in a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) lawsuit against George Mason University (GMU). The VFOIA request sought public records showing how the “RICO-20” group of academics, using public funding, organized their call for a federal racketeering investigation of “corporations and other entities” who disagreed with them on climate policy. The judge ruled for CEI on all counts in an April 22 ruling in Christopher Horner and CEI v. George Mason University that the court released today. The ruling concluded that by leaving it to faculty who simply told the school’s FOIA officer they had no responsive records, GMU failed to
FOIA E-Mails: Politically Inexperienced, Publicity-Hungry Scientists Get Burned In Political Arena
FOIA E-Mails: Politically Inexperienced, Publicity-Hungry Scientists Get Burned In Political Arena
Unfolding is the latest chapter in the sad state of climate science and the tragic consequences scientists face when they decide to go political without having the experience to do so. One has to wonder what these people were thinking when they expected dissenters to just roll over and waive their precious free speech rights. A Virginia judge has ruled in favor of The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in a Virginia Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against George Mason University, which was ordered yesterday to release documents and e-mails related to a group of scientists calling for the prosecution of organizations that promote manmade climate change skepticism – all under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Full story here. WUWT sees the scandal surrounding the controversy as one that is even more serious than the 2009 “Climategate” – an affair where e-mails exposed climate scientists exaggerating climate trends, manipulating the peer-review process, and skirting the freedom of information act. A total of 5 PDFs have been released concerning George mason University, and with climate scientist Jagadish Shukla with a leading role. Pages 1- 59 Pages 60-102 Pages 103-133 Pages 134-178 Pages 179-190 As one reads the e-mails, it quickly emerges that some of the involved scientists (unwittingly) meandered out of their academic realm, with which they are comfortable and familiar, and into a political one that is the very unfamiliar to them. Their scheme was ultimately aimed at intimidating and silencing scientific dissent. Odds “slim to none” Early on they were even advised that their case was very weak, and probably best left aside. For example Ed Maibach admitted (000003) that they really didn’t have much of a case: Yet he seemed unable to resist the opportunity of getting “lots of media attention” (000006): Maibach even fancied front page coverage in the Washington Post. What harm could it do to try? “New” in politics We also see Shukla announcing (000003) how he decided to become politically active, that he was “new” at it, and wrote that the issue is more about politics than science: Moreover he added that he had a “dedicated activist” on board for the science-based, world-saving political endeavor on which they were about to embark on: Clearly the political arena was new a new one for scientist Shukla – one he seriously …