What if there really are people exploiting the anthropogenic global warming panic purely for personal gain? A lot has happened in the climate change debate in the two months since the Climategate files were first revealed to the world. Oddly, the latest news hasn’t been making the papers in the U.S., but it sure has been in London.

One thing that has become clear is that the science in the IPCC reports was suspiciously slanted. Last weekend one of the IPCC principals, Dr. Murari Lal, admitted that they had introduced 2035 as the year the Himalayan glaciers would disappear — even though they knew it was questionable — in order to have more political impact:

Dr. Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr. Lal, the coordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: “It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

But why? Are they simply true believers who feel that the risk of anthropogenic global warming is so great that skewing the science would be justified? As scientists, that would be bad enough. But there’s another explanation. Could it be that the skewing of the results is not just being done by true believers, but instead by cynical manipulators intent on their own gain?

It’s the “second story” of Climategate.

It’s been considered here at PJ Media in the past, but there is much new evidence now, much of it focusing on Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, and The Energy Research Institute (TERI), his putative employer. TERI is an offshoot of Tata Group, the oldest — and one of the most respected — of Indian industrial firms. This was a lot more obvious before TERI changed its name, when it was the Tata Energy Research Institute, but the organization is the same.

What’s new is that we’re starting to uncover real connections. First, there’s the “slip” that led to the IPCC AR4 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035. We now know that’s not true. It was based on a World Wildlife Fund report, not peer-reviewed, which was itself based on a New Scientist article. The New Scientist article was quoting Dr. Syed Hasnain.