|
Comment on this article
Climate
researcher faces criticism
May/June 2010
by Mark
Alden Branch ’86
Last
July, the peripatetic engineer, economist, and Nobel Peace Prize winner
Rajendra Pachauri added a new part-time job to his schedule: founding director
of the Yale Climate and Energy Institute. But since early this year, Pachauri,
who chairs the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
has also kept busy responding to charges of financial irregularities and flawed
science at the IPCC.
| |
Doubts are growing about the reality of manmade climate change.
|
In
January, British newspapers began publishing articles critical of the IPCC’s
2007 report on climate change, claiming the report includes exaggerated and
misleading information. The IPCC acknowledged that the report’s claim that the
Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was “poorly substantiated,” and in March
the IPCC announced that it had commissioned an independent review of its
research procedures. “The IPCC stands firmly behind the rigor and reliability
of its Fourth Assessment Report from 2007,” Pachauri said in announcing the
review. “But we recognize that we can improve.”
Pachauri
also faced charges of conflict of interest this winter stemming from his job as
director of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in India. Critics accused
Pachauri of profiting from consulting work for private-sector companies such as
Toyota and Deutsche Bank. In March, an audit by the accounting firm
KPMG—commissioned by TERI—cleared Pachauri of wrongdoing, finding that the
consulting fees were paid to TERI.
The
questions raised about the IPCC report come as public doubts about the reality
of manmade climate change are growing. A survey conducted in December and
January by George Mason University and Yale’s environment school found that 57
percent of Americans think global warming is happening, down from 71 percent in
October 2008.
Pachauri
was unavailable for comment, but geology and geophysics department chair David
Bercovici says the criticisms of the IPCC are a “red herring” designed to tie
up resources and the time of climate scientists. “The increase of CO2 is off the scale,” says Bercovici. “Nobody argues this anymore. The question is
what happens afterwards. These are highly chaotic, nonlinear systems. But we
have a good idea how these things work, and it’s likely we’re playing with
fire.” 
|
