GreenTracker| The Economist says the past month hasn’t been a good one for Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of TERI, an Indian research institute. Publicly defensive about questions on the scientific rigor of climate change analysis, Pachauri recently admitted that his ‘evidence’ of incontrovertible evidence about Himalayan glacier melt was flimsy as best.
Introspection is a good thing for the most intelligent and talented experts in any field. It may be time for Pajendra Pachauri and the IPCC to take a chill pill but transparency at the IPCC remains murky at best. No one is accusing Pachauri is anything more than writing juicy bits in his new novel. Rather, the chairman doesn’t seem to understand — along with his flock — that plenty of independent-minded people are questioning the science (as opposed to the fact) of climate change research.
Concerns about the ‘grey science’, involving ‘truths’ not challenged in scientific journals but quoted from The Guardian or the New York Times extend far beyond the party of ‘No’. We’re not a bunch of crazies.
I’m on record as being astounded by the amount of silo thinking in research models. The biosphere is interactive, but so much research is linear, exploring a single environmental impact factor at a time.
Men’s minds may be linear but Mother Nature is holistic. Anne