If you are heading the body that is arguably leading the battle to save the world and if you face charges of wrongdoing, what do you do? (a) Respond to allegations, explain facts, take responsibility in case there is something really wrong. (b) Make counter allegations, allege a conspiracy and blame global business lobbies for that. R.K. Pachauri, chairperson of the Nobel winner Intergovenmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and also of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has chosen the second, easier option.

Last month there were reports that IPCC goofed up in predictions of the impact of climate change on the Himalayan glaciers. When the media sought Pachauri's response, he refused to comment initially and a couple of days later admitted to the mistake, though he termed it a minor one. Then came charges of conflict of interest, that he has been associated with several oil companies. This week, The Daily Telegraph, the British newspaper, has attacked him for his allegedly non-eco-friendly lifestyles – Armani suits and all. On Monday, the Hindustan Times reported that TERI, headed by Pachauri, got funds from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to conduct meetings of the IPCC, which again is headed by Pachauri.

His response: blame it all on a global conspiracy. In an interview with the Hindustan Times on Tuesday, he said: "All of this is clearly part of the strategy to demolish the science of climate change and thereby continue to earn their huge profits. They really don't want to pay for negative externalities that they are putting on the world through growing consumption and production of fossil fuels."

That might be true, but that does not refute the charges. So he responds to the charges: “I stopped eating meat years ago, I never go to a shopping mall because I'm against these energy guzzling establishments.”

Those behind the “global conspiracy” have alleged that he lives in the swanky Golf Links and goes to his TERI office, less than two kilometres away, in car. His reply: "I have an inherited house in Golf Links. If you think I should not be living in Golf Links, please get me a nice house, and I can think of moving from there. I find it very convenient (it's half a km from his office in TERI)." That, however, does not explain his carbon footprint, which compares more with that of the “conspirators” and less with, say, Gandhiji's.

It is standard operating procedure for people in a spot to fling their own set of allegations and conspiracies. But it t is precisely in the interest of the climate change science, Pachauri's supreme concern, that he should clear the air. That he should take option a rather than b. What do you think? Shouldt he respond to the substance of the charges, for a change? For climate change?