State of Fear - Michael Crichton

I didn't see State of Fear listed in the book nook - it's been a while so I apologize if someone already posted a similar thread - and I thought that you folks might find this book great discussion fodder.In many ways a typical Crichton thriller, State of Fear asks some very pointed questions about what we as a society have come to regard as truth: global warming is detrimental to our environment and is caused man's, specifically developed Western nations, wanton disregard of the environment.Two of Crichton's main points are:1- The evidence for global warming is weak (at best), misinterpreted and misreported at worst.2- Politicizing science can have dangerous consequences.Crichton actually has a short essay in the back of his book regarding the latter point where he compares the overwhelming public acceptance of current global warming theory to that of eugenics in the thirties.While not as good as Andromeda Strain, the story still entertains and uses the effective device of confronting the protagonist, an environmental lawyer, with cold, hard facts regarding the evidence, and often lack thereof, for global warming.Along the way Crichton takes a few potshots at the big business of 'not-for-profit' groups and Hollywood celebrities who ardently endorse political positions regarding concepts with which they have little or no understanding.If you've done much reading on the topic, most of Crichton's information will not be earth shattering, but he documents his sources very well with numerous footnotes and a robust bibliography.I enjoyed it because it was controversial and made me run to the web to double-check his 'facts.' Those with a strong Green bias will enjoy this book about as much as bleeding heart liberals enjoyed the outcome of the 2004 election; but if one is open-minded, whether you ultimately agree with Crichton's conclusions, readers will find State of Fear informative and thought provoking.

quote:

---

I haven't read it [State of Fear] but I know that Crichton's evidentiary basis for the book has come under sharp criticism from science organizations.
  —crashfrog

---

Not surprising as he is extremely critical of said organizations.

quote:

---

The problem is that Crichton's book seems to cause exactly what he rails against.
  —crashfrog

---

Don't you think it would be fair to actually read the book, or at least review the bibliography and the scientific studies cited therein before you imply that Crichton is guilty of using 'junk science?'I'm curious to know which scientific paper cited by Crichton in this book you think is evidence of junk science?Also, Crichton isn't claiming there is NO global warming, he's questioning the conclusions drawn by those who equate global warming with disaster. One of his most compelling points is that the most dire global warming predictions are based on computer models. He asks how the global warming advocates can predict climatological doom on a global scale one hundred years from now when we can't even predict the weather ten DAYS from now.Another poignant example he uses is that until 1970 scientists thought we might be heading into another ice age because global temperatures had undergone a thirty year cooling trend. His point is that no one really knows what the consequences are, if any, of an overall increase in the global temperature of one degree celsius in the last hundred years.At the end of the book Crichton entreats his readers to go out and actually look at the data for themselves before believing ANYONE's conclusion, including his own.