India says it can't rely on IPCC

From the London Times:

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. . . .

If you want to see a really weird defense of Rajendra Pachauri's actions, try this:

The U.N.'s climate chief dismissed "nefarious" global warming skeptics this week by insinuating that they are deep in the pockets of big business -- and suggested that they go rub their faces in cancer-causing asbestos.

Rajendra Pachauri, the besieged head of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, told the Financial Times on Wednesday that he is the victim of a "carefully orchestrated" campaign to block climate change legislation.

"I would say [there are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods," he told the paper, swatting away allegations that his India-based climate institute, TERI, has benefited from decisions made by the IPCC, which he also chairs.

Climate change skeptics "are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder," he said.

"I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day." . . .

Rather than defending his work, he attacks his critics. The entire interview in the Financial Times is here.

FT: So you suggest that some of this criticism may be orchestrated by those working on behalf of business interests that don’t want to see global action on climate change?

RP: Undoubtedly. And let’s face it, these forces have been very effective so far in blocking any action on climate change. You go back to 1992 when the UN Framework on Climate Change came into existence. We are now almost 20 years after that landmark agreement, what has the world really achieved in that regard?

The Kyoto Protocol has been weakened to the extent that it really hasn’t made a difference. It’s largely because of all these forces that are unfortunately very powerful; they can block legislation; they can block public policy; and they also spread a lot of disinformation.

FT: Why would such a campaign come now after the disarray of the Copenhagen Climate summit?

RP: They regard this as their moment of triumph and their moment of opportunity. They feel as if they can strike a body blow to whatever happened in Copenhagen, they can be sure that for several more years they can bask in the benefit of the profits they have been making for all these years, and they don’t have to worry about any change from business as usual. . . .