# Book Review- State of Fear by Michael Crichton



## Coolhand (May 4, 2007)

Review of State of Fear.

Short Version: Passable thriller, oil company propaganda or action packed science report? You decide! 

Long Version:

HERE BE SPOILERS! ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!

A surefire way to make learning more fun is to add snow mobiles and gunfights. Take Algebraic equations at school. Maths and algebra bored me to tears, had me weeping with the sheer tedium of the subject. But if Mr Griffin had started the lesson by crashing through the window in a snow-mobile and then shooting a couple of terrorists, I’d probably have far fonder memories of high school math lessons than I do now.

Michael Crichton obviously knows this truth. So in his novel State of Fear, which has the central premise that global warming is bunk, he adds lots of gunfights and snowmobiles to what is essentially less of a thriller, and more of a science lesson with a body count.

The basic plot follows your standard Crichton team of a capable science dude, two capable babes and a whining wimp as they try to foil an evil plot hatched by environmental terrorists. Along the way they discover that the whole global warming/climate change panic is not only rubbish, it’s actually the latest manifestation of something a great deal more profound about modern western society…

In terms of slam bang excitement, this thriller this isn’t a patch on the best of MC, such as Congo or Jurassic park. There are some very cool moments in it, and they make it worth reading as a thriller, but taken as a whole it’s certainly not his best, story-wise. However, taken as an effort to make a scientific presentation in support of global warming skeptics easily accessible and interesting, it really hits the mark. Apparently, according to MC, he originally intended to write a story about the dangers presented by global warming and the need to act, but when he actually came to research the science (as opposed to the media and Environmental NGO presentation of it) he found that, in his opinion, the science was non-existent, and what science there was had been misread, misapplied or was flawed in it’s collection at the source. According to Crichton, many prominent scientists dispute global warming in part or in total, but they fear to speak out, are being ignored, or are being actively told to shut the hell up. 

State of Fear is Crichton’s critique of everything from the Environmental movement (who he argues are probably responsible for 30-50 million third world deaths since 1972) computer climate models (which he argues are wild guesses presented as fact that all contradict each other) people with good intentions and bad information such as Hollywood celebrities and much more besides. It’s inflammatory stuff and not geared to make him guest speaker at the annual general meeting of Greenpeace. It would be tempting to dismiss it all as right wing oil industry propaganda or attention seeking waffle.

Except that Crichton has clearly done his research.

This book is stuffed full of references and actual data. Not only in the traditional Crichton appendix, which runs to an author’s message in which he discusses his own views on global warming, three collected essays and a monster 21 page bibliography. There are also huge amounts of footnotes in the book. Every time someone makes a pro- or anti-GW statement, a little footnote pops up to reference the actual scientific data/ paper/ foundation that makes the claim so you can check it yourself and decide. It’s a little clunky but remember, this is a science lesson with gunfights. 

Did he convince me? I’m not going to tell you. And that’s not really the point.

But this book forms part of the essential reading list for ANYONE who wants to have an informed opinion about one of the most important global issue today. If you support the climate change policies being pushed by environmental groups, then you need to know what your opponents in the debate are saying so that you can counter them. If you’re on the skeptical side of the GW debate than this is book is like an AK-47 when it comes to simple, powerful argumentation that hits where it hurts and hurts where it hits.
And if you’re an open minded dude somewhere in the middle, then it’s a very thought provoking read, regardless of your eventual conclusions as to it’s scientific merit or achievement as a thriller.

At the very least, the fact that this book and all the references even exist at least shows that, though much of the media and environmental NGO’s present CO2 triggered global warming as an open and shut case, the actual scientists are still involved a massive yet little publicized fight about the facts.

Hopefully a gunfight. On snowmobiles.


----------



## iansales (May 4, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> But this book forms part of the essential reading list for ANYONE who wants to have an informed opinion about one of the most important global issue today.



Why would I read a _novel_ in order to inform myself about Global Warming? If the author hasn't bent the facts to suit the story, then he's certainly twisted the story to present the "facts" he wants to make known. Fiction written as propaganda generally makes poor propaganda, and even worse fiction.


----------



## Coolhand (May 4, 2007)

iansales said:


> Why would I read a _novel_ in order to inform myself about Global Warming? If the author hasn't bent the facts to suit the story, then he's certainly twisted the story to present the "facts" he wants to make known. .


 
Okay, yeah, the required reading comment is just my own worthless personal opinion but of all the climate change literature I’ve flicked through, it’s one that most concisely sums up the “skeptic” viewpoint and supporting arguments. I didn't say it was the ONLY thing someone should read. But I thought it made a very good contribution to the debate.

I don’t agree that fiction cannot inform us as to the real world or to scientific debates.
It’s a bit like saying that I cannot inform myself about World War 2 by reading an exhaustively researched novel about a fictional WW2 soldier. I’d argue that I could, especially if the book throws the references to the historical source texts at me every few sentences.

Although the plot and characters in Crichton’s book are indeed fiction, the scientific studies, papers, data and research in the footnotes and the bibliography are real studies, papers and research, and Crichton takes pains to point his readers at the actual real world data, so much so that it actually gets in the way of the frickin’ story after while. You might not AGREE with the data or research (it seems that much of it is indeed hotly contested) but it really exists.



iansales said:


> Fiction written as propaganda generally makes poor propaganda, and even worse fiction.


 

And like I said in my review, as a thriller it ain’t the best. But as an entertaining way of hearing a scientific argument, it works quite well. In my own opinion.


----------



## iansales (May 4, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> Okay, yeah, the required reading comment is just my own worthless personal opinion but of all the climate change literature I’ve flicked through, it’s one that most concisely sums up the “skeptic” viewpoint and supporting arguments. I didn't say it was the ONLY thing someone should read. But I thought it made a very good contribution to the debate.




Unfortunately, I've heard the opposite - that Crichton's novel is thinly-veiled propaganda against Global Warming. And that he's very selective in what facts he uses. I certainly found his *Disclosure* manipulative and careful in the arguments it made to present the point of view Crichton wanted.



Coolhand said:


> I don’t agree that fiction cannot inform us as to the real world or to scientific debates.
> It’s a bit like saying that I cannot inform myself about World War 2 by reading an exhaustively researched novel about a fictional WW2 soldier. I’d argue that I could, especially if the book throws the references to the historical source texts at me every few sentences.




Ah, but the difference there is that the historical research provides background - it's not as if the plot depends on a specific interpretation of historical "facts". Like, for example, a novel set during WWII that sets out to prove the Holocaust never took place...


----------



## Coolhand (May 4, 2007)

(Shrugs) 
Just my own personal review dude. I'm not here to proclaim Crichton the savoir of the universe or defend him as the fountain of truth. Just thought it was a thought provoking book, regardless of my actual opinions. I didn't find it to be thinly veiled propaganda, I think Crichton honestly believes what he's written and does appear to have studied the subject in depth.

But if others found it to be propaganda, fair enough. 

I do think that some people are dissing it without actually reading it simply because it disputes the C02 triggered climate change theory, which has (rightly or wrongly) become something of a sacred cow. I know from my own research into the climate change debate that quite a few scientists who disagree with the theory have got pretty rough treatment from various corners simply for daring to disagree. That's never a healthy attitude to have when it comes to scientific research. 




> Ah, but the difference there is that the historical research provides background - it's not as if the plot depends on a specific interpretation of historical "facts". Like, for example, a novel set during WWII that sets out to prove the Holocaust never took place...


 
I imagine that such a book would fall down when those interpretations were cross checked with historical and scientific facts (which are different to scientific predictions and theories or historical guesswork when facts are sketchy.) The question for any such book becomes: How solid are the facts upon which the novel is based? How trust worthy are the sources? How good are the counter arguments? How accepted is the data? What are the politics/prejudices behind the accepted data vs the new data?
I imagine you'd have to take each book on it's own merits.


----------



## BookStop (May 4, 2007)

I read this one last year sometime, and I kind of agree with Coolhand about the information offered in the book. Sure it's a fictional story, but the amount of factual information gives the reader a valuable start in researching some of the facts about global warming. It is much easier to find research on the evils of global warming than the fip side of the argument. Now, I'm not saying I buy in to all of it, but anyone who really wants to inform themselves can certainly learn a lot from this book. Crichton could've just published all is research, but not as many peole would've been inclined to pick it up.

The book was horrible as a thriller, one of the few by Crichton I dislike in that respect, but it got me interested in global warming theories in general, and any book that makes one want to be better informed is ok by me.


----------



## Coolhand (May 4, 2007)

BookStop said:


> Crichton could've just published all is research, but not as many peole would've been inclined to pick it up.


 
Yup. Wading through scientific papers and reports can make your head hurt. Apparently, Crichton reads them for fun. The nutcase.... 



BookStop said:


> The book was horrible as a thriller, one of the few by Crichton I dislike in that respect, but it got me interested in global warming theories in general, and any book that makes one want to be better informed is ok by me.


 
The oddest thing I found was that such a great threat was being countered by a government team of just five people, two of them untrained amatures. I mean where were the Navy SEALS? Especially at the end!

I think I'll start calling it the Torchwood effect...


----------



## iansales (May 4, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> I do think that some people are dissing it without actually reading it simply because it disputes the C02 triggered climate change theory, which has (rightly or wrongly) become something of a sacred cow. I know from my own research into the climate change debate that quite a few scientists who disagree with the theory have got pretty rough treatment from various corners simply for daring to disagree. That's never a healthy attitude to have when it comes to scientific research.




Thing is, as Iain Banks points out in *The Steep Approach to Garbadale*, politics is irrelevant. If the GW people have got it wrong, and we waste money trying to fix something that isn't broke... well, then we waste a bit of money. But if GW _is_ right and we do nothing... then the planet's gone. We can't lose by believing in GW. So people like Crichton are actually making the situation worse.



Coolhand said:


> I imagine that such a book would fall down when those interpretations were cross checked with historical and scientific facts (which are different to scientific predictions and theories or historical guesswork when facts are sketchy.) The question for any such book becomes: How solid are the facts upon which the novel is based? How trust worthy are the sources? How good are the counter arguments? How accepted is the data? What are the politics/prejudices behind the accepted data vs the new data?



But history isn't composed of "facts". It's entirely open to interpretation. Back in the 1990s, the EU tried to put together a pan-European history text book for schools. Except... Napoleon is regarded as a great villain in the UK, but a hero in France and Belgium... Which is right? And which should be in the pan-European history book?

Scientific data, OTOH, is should be relatively immune to interpretation. Unfortunately, people pick and choose that data which supports their position.

Yes, Crichton writes thrillers, and they're entertainment. But he also uses them as platforms. He is, after all, a scientific advisor to the White House... and that on the strength of the "science" in his novels!


----------



## Coolhand (May 4, 2007)

iansales said:


> [/color]
> 
> Thing is, as Iain Banks points out in *The Steep Approach to Garbadale*, politics is irrelevant. If the GW people have got it wrong, and we waste money trying to fix something that isn't broke... well, then we waste a bit of money. But if GW _is_ right and we do nothing... then the planet's gone. We can't lose by believing in GW. So people like Crichton are actually making the situation worse.


 


In other words, the precautionary principle. 
Thing is, there IS a massive price attached to "fixing" GW. We are going to be killing millions of people in the third world and keeping millions more in poverty because we don’t let them develop their oil/gas/nuclear power stations, and we keep them from developing their economies. “Eco-power” such as sun, wind and water simply isn’t good enough right now to provide the needed supply for hospitals, electrical supply, food refrigeration, manufacture etc. Plus we’re not just spending “a bit of cash.” We’ve already spent billions and we’re going to be spending billions more, money that could go on a lot of other causes.

If GW is real and doing this saves the human race, then fair enough. A terrible price that has to be paid. But we’d better be bloody sure. Bloody, bloody sure. Because if we’re wrong we’re going to have a lot of blood and misery on our hands. So by bringing data that seems to challenge GW to the public attention, Crichton is not doing harm. He's helping us to be certain that we're bloody sure the price must be paid. If we can disprove the science he and a number of other scientists present, great. If we can't, perhaps we need to think about things. But saying he should shut up is just not compatible with the spirit of scientific debate. 
Attack his data, but don’t just tell him to be quiet.



iansales said:


> [/color]
> 
> But history isn't composed of "facts". It's entirely open to interpretation. Back in the 1990s, the EU tried to put together a pan-European history text book for schools. Except... Napoleon is regarded as a great villain in the UK, but a hero in France and Belgium... Which is right? And which should be in the pan-European history book?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not quite sure as to your point here. Yeah, historical facts always get an interpretation, some are more well established than others, but none of it changes the basic facts that for example, the Napoleonic war happened, who won, who lost etc. And scientific data isn't always as clear cut as people make out. Hence the reason for a number of accepted "facts" being re-evaluated as knowledge increases. And yes, both GW believers and skeptics probably cherry pick data to suit them. IMHO, neither Shell Oil or Greenpeace are unbiased observers of the science.


----------



## iansales (May 4, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> In other words, the precautionary principle.
> Thing is, there IS a massive price attached to "fixing" GW. We are going to be killing millions of people in the third world and keeping millions more in poverty because we don’t let them develop their oil/gas/nuclear power stations, and we keep them from developing their economies.




I freely admit I've never understood why this is a "cost". Specially given that the biggest contributors to global warming are... developed nations. As a sceptic, I have to wonder if the cost has not been inflated by the anti-GW crowd...




Coolhand said:


> Attack his data, but don’t just tell him to be quiet.




Why ever not? If the man is lying, we shouldn't have to listen to him. (That's a hypothetical, btw - I'm no climatologist and while I tend to side with pro-GW, I'm not well enough informed to point out where the anti-GW crowd are outright lying...)
 


Coolhand said:


> I'm not quite sure as to your point here. Yeah, historical facts always get an interpretation, some are more well established than others, but none of it changes the basic facts that for example, the Napoleonic war happened, who won, who lost etc. And scientific data isn't always as clear cut as people make out. Hence the reason for a number of accepted "facts" being re-evaluated as knowledge increases. And yes, both GW believers and skeptics probably cherry pick data to suit them. IMHO, neither Shell Oil or Greenpeace are unbiased observers of the science.



We're not debating who was the victor of Waterloo. It's Napoleon's role in history that's the issue. And that isn't as cut and dried as winning a battle (there have been disputes about that for as long as there has been a history!)


----------



## Coolhand (May 4, 2007)

iansales said:


> I freely admit I've never understood why this is a "cost". Specially given that the biggest contributors to global warming are... developed nations. As a sceptic, I have to wonder if the cost has not been inflated by the anti-GW crowd...


 
I'm sorry but I don’t quite follow your logic. How is that not a cost? How is it exaggerated?
Right now a lot of people die because they cannot refrigerate food or medicine because they don’t have electrical power. Fact. Or maybe they have a life expectancy of 40 because their nation has not developed to the same standard we have. Fact. If we stop them developing industry and power (as we will have to do to prevent climate change under the current proposals) we stop them from changing that. So they keep dying. Fact
That’s a huge cost. We in the more developed nations have the luxury of experimenting with alternatives. We have money and power and we can screw around with solar and wind and electric cars “just in case”. A lot of people don’t have the luxury. They just die instead.
HUGE cost. So we’d better be sure it has to be paid. 
(Obviously lots of other factors contribute to poverty and death but the GW “Fix” is gonna be a humdinger of a contributor.)



iansales said:


> Why ever not? If the man is lying, we shouldn't have to listen to him. (That's a hypothetical, btw - I'm no climatologist and while I tend to side with pro-GW, I'm not well enough informed to point out where the anti-GW crowd are outright lying...)


 
If he’s lying then it should be proved scientifically. But by your own admission you haven’t read the book, don’t know what he’s said and don’t seem to be interested either. Fair enough. If he’s just honestly got it wrong, I’m sure that will come out in the wash. But even if he’s outright lying, I’d rather a world where a man can lie in print rather than a world where no-one is allowed to challenge perceived wisdom. I tend to sway back on forth on GW and right now I think skeptics have raised some damn good points that no one in the Pro GW camp seems willing to answer with science. I’m starting to suspect it’s because they can’t but I’m open to being convinced either way.

(shrugs)

Anyway, I'm off for pizza. Peace dude.


----------



## iansales (May 4, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> I'm sorry but I don’t quite follow your logic. How is that not a cost? How is it exaggerated?
> Right now a lot of people die because they cannot refrigerate food or medicine because they don’t have electrical power. Fact. Or maybe they have a life expectancy of 40 because their nation has not developed to the same standard we have. Fact. If we stop them developing industry and power (as we will have to do to prevent climate change under the current proposals) we stop them from changing that. So they keep dying. Fact.




Well, yes. We developed nations should of course prevent the Third World from developing because they will add to Global Warming - instead of actually looking to what effect we ourselves are having and trying to reduce that. Don't let them have buses in Botswana, but it's okay for every family in the West to run two cars...

That's what I mean by "not a cost".




Coolhand said:


> But even if he’s outright lying, I’d rather a world where a man can lie in print rather than a world where no-one is allowed to challenge perceived wisdom.




And normally I'd agree. But he's not just "lying in print", he's helping set US government policy...




Coolhand said:


> I tend to sway back on forth on GW and right now I think skeptics have raised some damn good points that no one in the Pro GW camp seems willing to answer with science. I’m starting to suspect it’s because they can’t but I’m open to being convinced either way.



I suppose I'm mostly sceptical of the sceptics. I may only have been around for four decades, but that's more than long enough to actually witness changes in our climate. And when I consider that 100 years ago the world's population was less than a third of what it is now... well, that's a coincidence too far for me.



Coolhand said:


> Anyway, I'm off for pizza.



I hope that's a carbon-neutral pizza


----------



## suupaabaka (May 11, 2007)

iansales said:


> Why would I read a _novel_ in order to inform myself about Global Warming? If the author hasn't bent the facts to suit the story, then he's certainly twisted the story to present the "facts" he wants to make known. Fiction written as propaganda generally makes poor propaganda, and even worse fiction.



Facts are twisted by the media and government agencies as much as in any novel. Whenever someone publishes anything, it's from a very narrow perspective; it's impossible for anyone to collect and collate all the information from all possible angles. 

While his work may be construed as propaganda, he did portray both sides of the argument, which is a lot more than I can say for the information that national and international news agencies, as well as governing bodies, spew at us. Anybody remember Y2K? 

I've been skeptical about Global Warming since the issue arose, but felt no desire to do much relevant reading except for the odd newspaper article (and I'm always skeptical about newspapers). Crichton made the research accessible, and presented his findings in an easy to read format (though the plot was rather lacking). I am now aware that there is opposing research and literature to the Global Warming argument, which wouldn't have been the case if I hadn't read State of Fear. 

I think that it was his attention to raise awareness regarding the opposing research, and he's accomplished that very well. 

Just out of interest, have you read the book?


----------



## iansales (May 11, 2007)

suupaabaka said:


> Just out of interest, have you read the book?



No. I've read previous books of his and wasn't impressed by his propensity of twist facts to serve his agenda, while claiming to be even-handed. Crichton does to science what Dan Brown does to history...

However, as far as I can work out from reading around on the subject, the anti-GW position is far less tenable than pro-GW. Various comments I've seen on the film *The Great Global Warming Swindle*, for example, have been very informative...


----------



## Urien (May 11, 2007)

I struggle to see how one can lambast a book, and make wholesale assumptions about its POV without even reading it.


----------



## suupaabaka (May 11, 2007)

iansales said:


> No. I've read previous books of his and wasn't impressed by his propensity of twist facts to serve his agenda, while claiming to be even-handed. Crichton does to science what Dan Brown does to history...
> 
> However, as far as I can work out from reading around on the subject, the anti-GW position is far less tenable than pro-GW. Various comments I've seen on the film *The Great Global Warming Swindle*, for example, have been very informative...



I'd be very interested to know what books of Crichton's you've previously read, and the "twisted facts" you've identified. I own a large collection of his works, including his memoir "Travels", and would like to review the said facts.

I'm also in agreement with andrew.v.spencer. I think you should read the book before you make claims regarding its credibility.

Personally, I find films and television to be poor sources of valid information. Unlike documentaries that examine the habits of wildlife, those that explore such controversial issues as Gobal Warming tend to be one-sided at best, and pure unfounded propaganda at worst. I put much more faith in journal articles and other such published works, and Crichton cites materials from both perspectives of the Global Warming issue.


----------



## iansales (May 11, 2007)

suupaabaka said:


> I'm also in agreement with andrew.v.spencer. I think you should read the book before you make claims regarding its credibility.



The writer has a known agenda - why should that prevent me from questioning his credibility? Besides, I'm not the only one.


----------



## suupaabaka (May 12, 2007)

iansales said:


> The writer has a known agenda - why should that prevent me from questioning his credibility? Besides, I'm not the only one.



That article is written by a meteorologist and - disregarding the fact that the funding for his own work may be provided by an institution with a vested interest in the advancement of the global warning theory - must therefore also be taken with a grain of salt, as should Crichton's work itself. 

Granted, there are many who may agree or disagree with your claim against Crichton's credibility. Indeed, the article you have linked to is from the pro-Global Warming camp. However, my point is that without reading the actual work in question yourself, you have little upon which to base your accusations. 

Your own argument would gain more credibility if you simply read the book.


----------



## Specfiction (May 14, 2007)

I got about half-way through this one and had to stop. I consider it the Reefer-Madness of Global Warming. Not only was it propaganda, but it was tiresome and two dimensional. Much of it was the cliche: 

Naive Enviromentalist states what he/she believes to be a fact which he/she got from a liberal media pushing GW like a dealer pushes dope. Then the vision of an almost Indiana Jones science-guy protagonist says: 

"Did you know..." where the "..." was essentially that the fact you got from the liberal media is "junk" science and here's why... After which the naive environmental guy says: "thanks Indiana Jones scientist guy for saving me from a life of mental servitude to that terrible liberal media...

It was just terrible--and wrong. Here's the state of GW today: 

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). 

Even the US military gets it: 

Global Warming--a Military point of view

PS I've read almost all of Crichton's books and have generally liked them. This one, however, was really terrible.


----------

