You'll all know by now the above is Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Also you're possibly aware the IPCC published a report which clearly stated the Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. This has proved to be completely inaccurate and has been rubbished by many of the top climate change scientists.
Yet, in an interview, Pachauri said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim regarding the Himalayas because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report.
The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a "populist" step. "I don't do many populist things, that's why I'm so unpopular with a certain section of society," he said.
If nothing else, we have to admire Pachauri's tenacity for hanging onto his job (or one of them), and his audacity. As the heid bummer surely he knows the buck stops at him or is has his arrogance overtaken his common sense?
We have heard little or nothing from other members of the IPCC board. I wonder why.
Elsewhere Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU, is having his integrity questioned because the leaked emails suggest that he helped to cover up flows in temperature date from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. Crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. What data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.
Not only are CRU climate change scientists being accused of censoring their critics by withholding information from the peer review system, but it has emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field - stem cell research - have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the peer review process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.
Climategate, as well as exposing the climate change science to be seriously flawed, may have opened a whole can of worms in other areas of scientific research. 'Bad science needs good scrutiny' - all science needs good scrutiny.