In response to Climategate he gave out a statement that completely skirts the major issues - just like a politician or a government functionary would (Pachauri is a government appointee).Deny everything.Question the motives of the critics.
Over at the Dot Earth blog(whose author Andrew Revkin himself is a side character, an important one though, in the scandal) Pachauri is being excoriated in the comments.
A sample -
WIth all due respect, Dr. Pachauri just doesn't get it. Consensus and peer-review are part of the problem, since they can both be co-opted (as demonstrated)
How does Dr Pachauri spell "naive", "hide the decline" and "scientific fraud"? Such bureaucratic baloney will not save the day for the IPCC.
Dr. Pachauri has used a lot words to say very little. There are not tens of thousands of climate scientists involved in the IPCC, the number is relatively small and a few key players, like in all enterprises of this sort play a dominant role. Many of those are among the players in the disclosed e-mails.
As the author of several documents about the IPCC (see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/) I can say that Pachauri is being "economical" with the truth.and-
As for Pachauri's closing comment ...comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.", if there's one honest statement there I can't find it.
The Russians had Stalin - and TD Lysenko.
The Chinese had Mao - and the Lost Generation.
Western Science has this mess. I'm just glad the second-rate intellects from third-rate institutions (or is it the other way around) have begun to be found out.