Christoffer Bugge Harder
(936)
|
Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.
Så efter den indiske miljøministers mening er klimavidenskab åbenbart noget væmmeligt, elitært og vestligt noget, som man ikke kan stole på - så lad os hellere lave vores egne rapporter? (Så kan man selvfølgelig også kontrollere resultaterne meget sikrere.......) 
Uden at tage stilling til det indiske miljøministeriums og dets rapporters videnskabelige kvalitet lyder dette fuldstændig som den samme sang, som Thabo Mbeki og Robert Mugabe brugte til at så tvivl om, hvorvidt HIV nu også havde noget med AIDS at gøre: Det var kun en hypotese fra nogle væmmelige, hvide læger, der var ude i et neokolonialistisk ærinde.
Det var også samme type argumentation, som visse 70er-marxister eller -feminister brugte, når de af en eller anden grund havde brug for en undskyldning for at afvise et par århundreders resultater frembragt af "borgerlig" eller "maskulin/pikket" forskning. Vi kan nok snart imødese Dansk Folkepartis version af dette argument i klimadebatten: Vi kan ikke stole på alle de internationale forskere og deres underlige videnskabelige artikler skrevet på udenlandsk (hvem forstår den slags?) - vi må have en national kommission, der kan afklare spørgsmålet om menneskeskabte klimaforandringer i ægte dansk perspektiv, og den skal være ledet af en totalt upartisk forsker som Bent Jensen i stedet for alle de venstreorienterede og upålidelige klimavidenskabsfolk.  
Derudover, når nu "Kosmos" (=Hans Henrik Hansen) igen vil forsøge at gentage den klassiske insinuation om, at Pachauri tjener styrtende med penge:
....privatøkonomisk tror jeg ikke, 'prisen' gavner Pachauri (som vist iøvrigt rent pekuniært har sit på det tørre!(?))
- så vil jeg opfordre folk, der er interesserede i sandheden om den sag, til at tjekke denne gennemgang af Pachauris indkomstforhold og økonomiske interesser i sagerne her:
It's not just that Pachauri hadn't been profiting from the help he has given to charities, businesses and institutions, his accounts show that he is scrupulous to the point of self-denial. After the Sunday Telegraph published its story, the organisation for which Pachauri works - a charity called The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) - asked the auditors KPMG to review his financial relationships. Today, for the first time, the Guardian is publishing KPMG's report(1).
KPMG studied all Pachauri's financial records, accounts and tax returns, as well as TERI's accounts, for the period 1 April 2008 – 31 December 2009. It found that any money paid as a result of the work that Pachauri had done for other organisations went not to him but to TERI. None of the money was paid back to him by TERI: he received only his annual salary, which is £45,000.
His total additional income over the 20 months reviewed by KPMG amounted to the following:
* A payment of 20,000 rupees (£278) from two national power commissions in India, on which he serves as director;
* 35,880 rupees (£498) for articles he has written and lectures he has given;
* A maximum of 100,000 rupees - or £1,389 - in the form of royalties from his books and awards.
In other words, he made £45,000 as his salary at TERI, and a maximum of £2,174 in outside earnings. So much for Pachauri's "highly lucrative commercial jobs" amounting to "millions of dollars".
Amazingly, the accounts also show that Pachauri transferred a lifetime achievement award he was given by the Environment Partnership Summit - 200,000 rupees - to TERI. In other words, he did not even keep money to which he was plainly entitled, let alone any money to which he was not.
As for "how much we all pay him" as chairman of the IPCC, here is the full sum:
£0.
It wouldn't have been difficult for the Sunday Telegraph to have discovered this. It's well known that the IPCC does not pay its chairmen. His job at TERI is not a "sideline", as many of his opponents maintain. It is his livelihood.
This is a reflection of the lack of support given by governments to the IPCC. Its opponents like to create the impression that it's an all-powerful body on the verge of creating a communist/fascist world government. In reality it's a tiny, underfunded organisation which can't even pay its own chairman.
Den korte version er, at Pachauri ikke tjener en krone på sit formandsskab i IPCC, har en årsløn på noget, der minder om en dansk akademikers begyndelsesløn (ca. 390.000 kroner), og endda forærer belønninger væk - og at Sunday Telegraph pænt har måttet slette deres historie, trække alle beskyldninger tilbage og undskylde overfor Pachauri.
Men dette skal naturligvis ikke forholde folk som Hans Henrik Hansen fra at gentage ubegrundede insinuationer om Pachauris lukrative privatøkonomi i det uendelige. Når det tager 30 sekunder at komme med en beskyldning, men 30 minutter at tilbagevise den (og det derudover vil kræve kedsommelig læsning af facts af læserne), kan man jo altid håbe på, at der er nok, der bider på derude............
Redigeret d. 22-01-2011 22:34 |
Til forsiden
Debatforum
Naturen røber at
