For scientists to remain credible, they have to have a certain detachment from their work. At the very least, they have to have no vested interests in any particular outcome, or they risk biasing their work to produce outcomes favorable to themselves. On anthropogenic global warming, we already have advocates like Al Gore who stand to make billions of dollars by convincing governments to impose cap-and-trade systems that will rely on their businesses for the service — but advocates aren’t scientists. However, the Telegraph reports today that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and who is considered the top climate scientist in the world, has a wide portfolio of business interests that rely on AGW hysteria:
No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.
It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.
The Telegraph goes into excruciating detail in uncovering Pachauri’s monetary interests in maintaining AGW hysteria. The extensive reach that Pachauri has created calls into question both his credentials and his motives. Why did the UN pick a former railway engineer with no background in climate science to lead its effort on AGW? Clearly, Pachauri was selected for his influence rather than his scientific expertise.
Climategate exposed the chicanery of AGW science at East Anglia CRU, including the attempts to hide contradictory data and smear critics. This exposes a critical conflict of interest in the UN effort built on the CRU’s data. In that sense, Pachauri might be the perfect pick to lead the effort. It’s all about economics, not the climate or science at all. It’s an excuse to impose a massive transfer of wealth from developed nations to Third World dictatorships, and people like Pachauri have positioned themselves to get rich on the transactions.