Apparently he did, at least according to Fred Barnes' new book, Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush. I haven't read Barnes' book; I'm relying on a review of it by Ronald Brownstein, which includes the following:
Those who admire Bush will find plenty to celebrate in Barnes' portrayal of a president who is resolute and visionary, yet humble and pious. Perhaps inadvertently, Barnes also includes plenty of evidence likely to horrify those who oppose Bush (for instance, Barnes reports that the president fundamentally doesn't accept the theory of global warming and was reinforced in that belief by a private meeting not with any scientist but rather with novelist Michael Crichton, whose novel "State of Fear" revolves around the issue).
I'm not surprised to learn that Bush "fundamentally" rejects the science of global warming (although that's quite inconsistent with the administration's official message and position on the issue). But that our president might have gotten science advice from Crichton--if true, that's stunning.
Bush, you will recall, asked the National Academy of Sciences in 2001 whether humans are causing the earth to warm. The NAS, predictably, said that indeed we were. Since then, the administration has officially proceeded as global warming is real. Granted, there has been much low-level malfeasance when it comes to meddling with government science, but the government's official position is that this threat exists. Bush science adviser John Marburger, for example, has stated as much. So the notion that the president may have gone shopping for an "alternative" view--and settled upon the perspective of a novelist--is amazing on multiple levels.
I doubt this is the last you'll hear about this. Next step: Someone needs to ask Scott McClellan for confirmation of Barnes' reporting...
- Log in to post comments
texas holdem Probaly you should read this. texas holdem Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy texas holdem now! God bless you.
"Horrify"? Yes. Surprise? No.
Someone needs to ask Scott McClellan for confirmation of Barnes' reporting...
Why bother? McClellan is just a low-level functionary who doesn't know anything.
Agreed, that Crichton is not admirable on climate change. (My apologies to J.M. Barry, author of The Admirable Crichton, a novella about the shortcomings of British class society.) However, he does have some science background--Crichtonis a Harvard M.D. who never practiced medicine, but started out as a writer of biology textbooks before his novels took off. But his extrapolations are often wrong--did the Japanese take over the world economy, as he suggested in Rising Sun? Has anyone isolated nondegraded DNA from insects in amber?
Citing Crichton as a scientific source seems to be popular these days.
Click my name and discover a comment by someone named Chris Zaharias in response to my blogging about the Deutsch vs. Hansen affair.
He cites Crichton and then calls Hanson and me ideologues. Oy!
The really disturbing thing was how he circumvented any review on his science whatsoever. Fiction was a way to get his claims out there completely unchecked except in a post-publication, confused, "clean-up-the-mess" sort of way. If he had tried the same thing even in a popular magazine he would have had to get his claims reviewed first. The magazine's reputation would have been at stake, so there would have been some sort of fact-checking process. With fiction, no problem. It's the creative process. Anything goes! I think he said something about "not wanting anyone looking over his shoulder" until he was done. The whole process is very convenient for a polemicist. And highly flawed as science.
John Marburger was the president of SUNY Stony Brook while I was getting my bachelor's there, and for several years thereafter. He was generally regarded as a good guy. When the campus SF library burned down, he did what he could to find temporary space. He supported and attended the campus SF convention.
I'm puzzled and disappointed by his complicity in the Bush administration's passive-aggressive war on science. Yeah, the official position is that global warming is real and a threat, but this tepid, formal statement is drowned out by the well financed F.U.D. campaign orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry and ideological think tanks.
If Marburger had any integrity he'd quit and raise a stink.
I think that is a stronger statement than is warranted. What has the Bush administration has actually done (i.e. how have they proceeded)? I always thought this "admission" was really with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" to their base that they don't really believe in this global warming nonsense. I think they think it's just good PR, so long as the faithful know they don't really mean it.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) endorsed Crichton and State of Fear last January before calling Crichton to the Senate to "counsel Congress on how to consider diverse scientific opinion when making policy" last September.[quoted words from the New York Times]
Inhofe and Bush are as close as Oklahoma and Texas.
Does he also consult with Tom Clancy on military strategy?
I don't understand how anyone could go through life thinking some of the crazy things people think. And I don't mean the crazy belief that global warming isn't happening. I mean the crazy idea that if you shop around until you hear the opinion you wanted to hear, even if you have to ask someone with questionable credentials (and morals), then that's as good as the truth. It seems self-evident that doing this would get you into trouble.
We like to blame Bush but this is really a massive culteral problem. People, for the most part, believe what they want to believe independent of what reality is telling them. This is true even for some of the people who are "on our side" environmentally. And, as a scientist myself, I have no idea how to fix this. I doubt it's even fixable but I'm willing to try.
Julie, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush did consult Tom Clancy. Clancy has spoken to military organizations, but I think the main reason is that they are flattered to be the subjects of his fiction. It makes them feel like they're in the movies, which, as everyone knows, is the only place anything real ever happens.
"So the notion that the president may have gone shopping for an "alternative" view--and settled upon the perspective of a novelist--is amazing on multiple levels."
This is just par for the course.
That's how "George Bush and the Cherry Pickers" (sounds like a bluegrass group, doesn't it?) operate -- on WMD, Global warming, and everything else.
Sadly, they continue to do it because it WORKS -- time and time again.
How do you think the war in Iraq came about?
Does anyone know whether he's met with Stephen King or Clive Barker? That might explain the anti-Manimal comment in the SOTU.
I hate Michael Crichton's work. His writing is terrible (Timeline just didn't make any sense at all). What I really dislike is his science is bad and he makes scientists the villains.
Almost every global warming denier I've talked to has cited Crichton as their source. It's pretty easy to mock considering he writes fiction. (I always ask for their sources since I read the scientific literature).
Chris is right. Where's the outrage? Let's stir things up, people -- blog the hell out of this one.
Well, I like Crichton's writing, but he's out to lunch on this conclusion. So much so, that I'm a writing an answer novel using the facts he chose to ignore. Two can play this game even if one has a helluva head start.
All you lefties continue to miss the point. Global warming does indeed appear to be occuring, however, the evidence that it is caused by mankind's puny activities is put forth by extrememly left-wing biased enviro-wacko organizations and pinko-leaning scientists. George Bush, a man of great common sense, is rightly skeptical of dubious findings from dishonest organizations and individuals of your hand-wringing persuasion
A man of great common sense, George Bush? You've got to be aware that anything you might have said that was even slightly correct regarding the reality of global warming was washed away with that statement. If you're going to engage in environmental polemics, don't set yourself up by championing someone who knows less than the average ten year old regarding environmental science. And as for your snarls about leftie pinko whackos: You should put your head back in the sand where it belongs.