Thursday, December 24, 2009

Understanding "conflict of interest" is not climate science

The Pachaurigate rolls along in the media and things are getting hotter(pun intended)-
 In a rejoinder(to the accusations in the daily Telegraph), nine Fellows of the TERI.....demanded an unqualified apology from the newspaper for the “libellous” piece of journalism, failing which the institute would take recourse to other measures it would deem appropriate.

To similar threats one-half of the Booker-North team had earlier replied -
The second word of the response I have in mind is "off".
The IPCC must put it's best minds to solve that one.Maybe they can come up with a hockey stick for Pachauri to defend himself.

TimesNOW TV had a small report -
Who is gunning for Pachauri?

That makes it sound as if a shadowy group of international hackers has let loose a hit team after him. I suppose that's the way Pachauri feels nowadays.
The embedded video from that site is not working.Here is the link.

As EUreferendum pointed out, he also appeared on NDTV to put up a totally unconvincing defence-

Video -Pachauri defends himself on NDTV

His basic case remains that -
1) every single penny he received (and some of his remunerations are "generous", he admitted)went to his institute TERI.
2) this is a plot by "skeptics" to demolish climate science(he didn't say "hackers" this time, at least in the portion shown)
3) the "skeptics" are being paid lot of money by "vested interests" who don't want to do anything about climate change.

The interview was incomplete - we were obviously shown a part only. Whether the anchor asked any tough questions or not remains a mystery. Pachauri by the way is deeply enmeshed in the NDTV's green initiatives.

Pachauri was also on TV yesterday saying something like,"I know something about English language" -this was in context of interpretation of the Copenhagen agreement.Now that he has admitted to understanding English, then surely he knows what "conflict of interest" means.Denying it is like denying that the sun rises in the east or that Angela Jolie's lips are God created strawberries.

It is as simple as ABC-
A) He is the head of IPCC which has been promoting climate alarmism and recommending drastic policy measures on a global as well national and local scales.Those policy changes will obviously hurt many and benefit some(as always happens when the state mandates something)- and companies and organisations are jostling to be among the winners.They stand to make a killing in the artificially created carbon "market" that is expected to be in trillions.The taxpayers the world over will be among the losers -but who cares about them? Not Pachauri and his ilk.

B)Pacahuri is advisor etc. to these concerns which are drooling at the thought of making a killing. They of course, fully expect that with Pachauri on board they will succeed and how!

C)This is classic conflict of interest. Pachauri by his enormous influence creates new policy environment.Pachauri as adviser helps organizations take advantage of those policies and make hay while Pachauri shines.

And this is irrespective of whether Pachauri makes a personal fortune out of it or not.
So what's so difficult to understand about this "conflict of interest" thingamijig? It's not as if it's climate science.

As for Pachauri giving all his wealth selflessly away to TERI, his organization -I definitely answered that here.

To repeat myself partially-
The excuse that he did it for TERI, a non-profit, does not wash. Top-notch non-profits are a very far cry from some local outfit of salvation army type misty-eyed stragglers.They have lavish offices all over the world and their budgets run in tens and sometimes hundreds of millions.Their top honchos are wined and dined and awarded in the highest places and palaces.

The big non-profits are the new elites.
And Pachauri is the top of this heap.Playing the saint won't wash. No sir,

We need accountability, transparency, an impartial investigation of his affairs and better excuses that won't insult our intelligence.