The same group of climate deniers who have been active across the Atlantic have now joined hands to attack me personally, alleging business interests on my part which are supposedly benefiting me as well as the Indian Tata group of companies.
My institute, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has no links with the Tata group, other than having been established through seed funding from that group as a non-profit registered society in 1974, much like several other non-profit institutions of excellence set up by the Tatas for the larger public good. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me.
Do you find this line of defence convincing? Should a chairman of the IPCC have the many advisory functions that he admittedly holds?
He then goes on to emphasize the need for multilateral action which is not only his right, but given his position, his duty. However, I was slightly puzzled by the following call for direct action, which does not figure under the IPCC remit:
But importantly, it seems to me that civil society and grassroots action would have to come into their own, not only to ensure that human society takes responsibility for action at the most basic level, but also to create upward pressure on governments to act decisively. If such grassroots efforts do not spread and intensify, nation states may not be able to resolve the differences that exist between them.
It is good to see that a reliance on the science alone does not seem convincing to him any longer. However, as chairman of the IPCC this is an odd thing to admit.