Our wonderful administration saves the day again.

[snousle]

From Wikipedia:

Todd D. Stern (born May 4, 1951) is the United States Special Envoy for Climate Change, leading talks at the United Nations climate change conferences and smaller sessions, appointed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on January 26, 2009.

From a briefing a few days ago:

QUESTION: He was talking about – Minister Ramesh was talking about recent controversies about Himalayan glaciers.

MR. STERN: About what?

He didn't know.

[Update: There are some comments suggesting that maybe we shouldn't jump to that conclusion. Read the whole thing and decide for yourself. Nevertheless...]

Comments

[qnetter]

Come on, quote the whole response. It's as likely that he didn't hear or make out the words as he didn't know what they were talking about.

(And besides, as he pointed out, he's not there to be a technical specialist.)

[dhpbear.livejournal.com]

Agreed, maybe he pronounced it "Hi-MAH-lian"! :)

[snousle.livejournal.com]

How much should I quote? The rest of it is even more damning. "I make no comment one way or another about whether they’re mistakes – I just don’t know."

Really. That's some pretty serious isolation from current issues. This issue has been addressed in letters and leading articles in both Nature and Science every single week for two months.

He gave no indication at any point in the briefing of any engagement with the subject whatsoever. The Himalayan glacier error is a cornerstone of the current political attack on climate science. I'm sure he's a busy guy, but he was at the very least dodging any substantial discussion. Is that what these briefings are for, to avoid engagement with top issues by pleading implausible levels of cluelessness?

[qnetter]

Pretty much, yes. The goal of the executive branch is to tell the legislative branch as little as possible until they stop asking. Dodging is an important skill.

And his role is to be a political operative, to create the space in which technical issues go our way, not to discuss and enlighten about them.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Well, that is a very interesting perspective. I realize that certain aspects of politics look bizarre unless you know the "real" purpose behind the statements being made. But to anyone who cares about this issue, this looks extra-super-bizarre.

If he does know that the item in question is universally acknowledged by all sides to be an error, then he is coming perilously close to telling an outright lie, albeit a peculiar one. Does that seem like a good idea? He could have just said "I'm not prepared to comment on that right now" and not like an ass.

[qnetter]

The fact is, there IS an error in the report. It's not a very significant one, and it's a misquote from another report, but it IS an error.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Yes, my concern is that that everyone on all sides knows and acknowledges this fact, except for him. He shows either an astonishing disconnection from current events, or if that's not the case, an equally astonishing effort to appear that way.

[qnetter]

I see an Indian reporter citing the idea that India's scientific objections are based on the error, and his reply that if there are errors, it's unfortunate, but the work is important and valid.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

OK, no disagreement with this observation, but I'm not clear how this relates to the current discussion?

Sorry, I misread your comment... yes, he says all the nice things one would expect of an empty suit. That is the problem.

[kevynjacobs.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

From what I read the exchange was about as clear as mud... but then politics is that way.