Bush didn't like to defy Nature, but Science was a different matter

Even after several readings, there's an exchange I completely fail to understand in Seed's interview with outgoing presidential science adviser John Marburger:

Seed: Did you see President Bush ever change his mind based on the scientific evidence that you presented him?

John Marburger: As far as I can tell, the president, as a matter of principle, doesn't think it's wise to defy nature. By the time I've arranged a presentation about something for the president, all science questions have been resolved. And he expects it. He would probably fire me if I permitted a science question to leak into his briefings. I'm there to make sure that his advisors and his agencies have consulted with the science community, and that all the science issues have been taken care of before anything gets to him.

What?

Is Marburger implying that the President was completely uninterested in hearing about science? Don't get me wrong - I don't expect a President to have time for a play-by-play of the major findings in a field or a debate on the merits of the evidence and methodology in recent studies. But if there's a scientific policy issue on the table (global warming, vaccination, bioterrorism, pandemic flu, stem cells, the space shuttle, etc.), how in the heck can science questions not"leak into his briefings"? It's some kind of fantasy world.

And what the heck does the line about "defying nature" mean?

I can't even read this. Help.

More like this

A few years ago, the after-dinner speaker at the DAMOP conference banquet was Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger. As I wrote at the time, I think it's safe to say that he didn't make a positive impression on the audience. It also sparked a rather lively discussion afterwards, that some…
Without holding anything back, I've tried to be respectful in my criticisms of Bush science adviser John Marburger. He's a well regarded scientist, after all. And I doubt he's responsible for any of the troublesome behavior of the administration. But Marburger's defenses of the administration are…
The Buzz on Sb today has to do with Matt Nisbet's endorsement of Francis Collins to be the science adviser to the next presidential administration, and everyone seems to be piling on. (I had originally written a post about this topic but foolishly deleted it because I thought no one would really…
Folks: Here's another old article I wrote that wasn't online. You could say this is the article that started it all...my 2001 report on how John Marburger had been marginalized in the Bush administration. We're talking old school....but at the same time, this kind of writing ultimately led to The…

I think there's a misprint in the article to which you refer. Marburger says Bush didn't want "a science question to leak into his briefings". I think that should read he didn't want "a science question to leak into his BRAIN".

Let's face it, Bush is widely regarded as the least curious president ever. Anything all sciencey sounding would have been out of bounds for sure!

By Nebularry (not verified) on 18 Jan 2009 #permalink

No wonder he doesn't understand science.
He never heard about any, for eight years.

Once "all ... questions have been resolved" it isn't science.

Yep. Fantasy world

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 18 Jan 2009 #permalink

I think he is just confirming what we all knew. GWB was perpetually surrounded by yes men and that anyone offering criticism, questions, inconvenient facts or alternate viewpoints and explanations was barred from any contact with the president.

It is probably more along the lines of the president trusting subject matter experts to make the right policy decisions, whether that's a matter of law, war, science, or economics. One can argue the merits, qualifications, trustworthiness, etc. of the president's advisors, but it's probably a good thing that he has them and relies on them (can't be an expert or even be informed on everything - there's just too much).

By Matthew X. Economou (not verified) on 18 Jan 2009 #permalink

Defying nature? Well, like building a dike to keep New Orleans from flooding. Or cooking food, washing hands with soap and water, using toilet paper, and sleeping indoors.

Forget it, this guy is so blind he cannot understand simple things like turnabout is fair play. We should let him suffer the same fate he let New Orleans suffer.

By Globle Warren … (not verified) on 18 Jan 2009 #permalink

The question would be by what means have "all science questions been resolved"?

From the reports of the now-ending Administration, my suspicion would be "most politically palatable" rather than "most probably correct".

Even "most politically palatable" may not be the criteria used: "Most amount of money in Cheney's pockets" is, perhaps, more plausible?

blf, I think that can be reduced to a subcase. =)

It means the President thought it imprudent to defy me. How right he was!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

By Tree-Ra, Overl… (not verified) on 18 Jan 2009 #permalink

My read is that he's trying to say "Bush was an incurious delusional fuckwit who did not want to hear anything that contradicted his delusional fuckwitted preconceptions", but without being too explicit about it. This is what all the Bush dick-suckers are doing now that Bush has been totally discredited--trying to "rehabilitate" themselves from the sad sick fact that they enabled vast depravity in exchange for proximity to political power. They think that they can somehow blame Bush personally for all this shit, and escape scot free. But the fact is, this greedy sick right-wing pieces of shit played integral roles in all of the depravity and destruction of the Bush regime. Bush was the apotheosis of the conservative movement, and the idea that he was an aberration is pernicious and false. The conservative movement got *exactly* what it wanted from Bush.

It means he doesnt like gays and that women should be barefoot and pregnant. The fundies go on about violating nature when they start foaming at the mouth about "teh gays" and "teh feminists".