State of Fear

On the question of global warming/climate change, the theme that dominates Michael Crichton's 2004 thriller State of Fear, I'll try to keep it mercifully brief for anyone who might be reading this review. Suffice to say that the people who give this book 1-star, and those who give it 5-stars, are both wide of the mark, and reveal their ideological allegiances. Crichton is a sceptic but not a 'denialist', that loaded term which has become all the rage in the two decades since State of Fear was published and which has always seemed to me an underhand attempt to provoke connotations to Holocaust denial.

Crichton's appeal is for scientific scepticism and independent inquiry, endeavouring to be free from bias, ideology, financial influence or show more peer pressure. Whatever one's opinions on Crichton's specific stance or his conclusions, that's a worthy aim for any piece of fiction. His commentary on media manipulation and the politicization of science remains timely, and has perhaps become even more so in the years since State of Fear's publication. One can only imagine what Crichton, who earned a medical degree from Harvard, would have written of our approach to the Covid pandemic and lockdown.

Contentious themes aside – and it seems a lot of Crichton's books possess such taboo themes, and it's a shame that honest contrarians and dissenters have been harried out of mainstream art and culture – the inconvenient truth is that State of Fear is not a great thriller. Crichton is a good storyteller, and his pages flow by easily, but the plot was very synthetic. Kenner, the spy with an answer to everything, lacks the flaws to make him interesting, and the fact that the plot sees him bring along our everyman cast of lawyers and 9-to-5-ers across dangerous continents and into perilous gunfights and outlandish action set-pieces becomes increasingly absurd. The threat from the environmental terrorists in the book (which is made weaker by the lack of a central villain) would in a common-sense book be dealt with by spies and special forces, not by one spy and the have-a-go heroes he picks up along the way.

It's clear that State of Fear was a polemic of environmental scepticism first, and a thriller a distant second. The plot and characters are thinly adorned around the powerful and controversial theme and exist solely to justify it. Or at least, they justified it in 2004, when the book was published; in 2023, the reverse is true. The plot and characters are no reason at all for State of Fear to retain value or interest. But its expression of a minority viewpoint, a view that has become verboten in the years since, gives it a transgressive value in a Western culture that has become increasingly slavish to the cultural complacency, under-informed debate and scientific hubris that Crichton always railed against in his novels, regardless of their particular topics. His are novels that, for all their pessimism, now seem like a time capsule of a healthier age. show less

A masterwork of climate change denial. I suspect it has been quite successful, too. If you want to understand the climate change debate, it's an important book to read.

It reminds me a little of Jacques Roubaud's Princess Hoppy novels, where he mixes fictional narrative with math exercises. Here, Crichton mixes real scientific data and reports into the action-packed thriller story. It certainly motivates the reader to think about the science involved! Crichton is not bashful in the least about the slant he is putting on the data.

It's hard to say what Crichton's goal is exactly. He has a grand time bursting the bubbles of the ignorant, but to what end exactly is unclear. He says that people will not be able to stabilize climate. I don't show more know all the proposals and goals that folks in the climate change world might have, but that's one I haven't heard. Crichton acknowledges that human activity most likely does affect climate. Crichton doesn't quite come out and say that climate change theory is a plot to establish a worldwide totalitarian regime. How else could people control the behavior of people? Hmmm, yet here is Crichton publishing propaganda! It's tricky territory, for sure!

Crichton attempts to refute the precautionary principle without quite defining it. It's a bit like atheists who deny God without being careful to define God. Of course there is an extreme version of the precautionary principle that would require people to refrain from any sort of risky activity. Of course just being alive involves a 100% chance of death. That extreme version of precaution is absurd. But to go to the other extreme - just do whatever you want because nobody can be absolutely certain about the results - that is absurd too. This puzzle is a nice example where some kind of middle way between extremes seems called for - I have been advocating a Buddhist Philosophy of Science as a way to cultivate such middle ways.

We really do not have the intellectual tools to confront the problem of climate change. Yeah Crichton says that forecasts of resource limits more generally are ridiculous because there have been so many failed predictions. Go back, friend, and read the Scientific American article by M. King Hubbert from I think 1980. The fact that many people are wrong doesn't mean that nobody has anything useful to say.

It's a crazy situation. If we were really to take the problem of climate change seriously, it would probably mean the end of the modern world. But if we don't take the problem seriously, it means that we have decided to stop trusting science as a guide to action. Crichton warns us that mixing up science and politics will taint science. But using science as a guide to action is to mix up science and politics. Crichton actually gives a rather confused version of double blind experimental methodology in this book - at least I have never seen double blind used to mean multiple independent teams of researchers. Usually it means that the researchers cannot tell e.g. which subjects are in the control group and which are in the experimental group. But Crichton's version, using independent teams, is a reasonable idea. But if the results are guiding high stakes decisions, at some point the rubber has to meet the road - somebody has to perform the meta-study that combines the reports from the various teams...

We seem to be getting to the point where preserving our way of life means we just have to discard science, which, uh, is actually the foundation of our way of life. Rather that walking forward, eyes open, into the end of the modern age, we are going to trip and stumble blindly into it.

This is definitely a book to get a person thinking! show less

I always enjoy a Crichton novel but this one had me fuming. The topic of global warming is treated extensively and in a very didactic way by the main character, who doesn't come across to me as believable. I totally agree with the premise that our mainstream media and politicians voice a lot of concerns about topics like the environment without really understanding all the issues. However, this topic is always going to be open to interpretation, depending on what sources one reads. Dismissing the phenomenon of climate change as merely propaganda seems dangerous to me, even if one isn't totally convinced. Rather than take the word of a broadcast journalist, one needs to explore the data itself and formulate one's own opinion.

Michael Crichton would really like to let you know that there’s no such thing as global warming. Also, the media keeps you in a constant state of fear about whatever crisis or catastrophe is coming next. You’re more easily controllable that way. To that end, he has carefully crafted a science fiction thriller with handy real-life corollaries and a multitude of footnotes. He even includes a forward that seems to assert the truth of this entire tale. A more malleable mind might take him at his word and believe the work to be non-fiction. In fact, US Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, made State of Fear “required reading” for members of said committee. Because fiction novels show more should absolutely inform public policy.
Crichton’s novel almost works as a thriller; a group of people race around the world trying to stop members of the EarthEnvironmental Liberation Front from creating “natural” disasters to coincide with a big Abrupt Climate Change Conference. Unfortunately, the leader of the group, John Kenner, keeps engaging people in conversations in which he points out how silly and wrong-headed their media-informed opinions are about climate change, wildlife management, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and more. He’s really quite a dick about it. Also, it’s difficult for suspense to build when every plane ride to the next disaster consists of this guy pontificating. With footnotes! Did I mention the footnotes? There are tons of them. A cursory Google search of the book will produce several different scientific organizations who have gone pretty much point-by-point through Crichton’s arguments and poked holes in all of them, but as Kenner would say, that’s because the scientists are in the pockets of the environmentalists. Which is just about as ridiculous as his denigration of the people who dismiss contradictory studies because they were funded by industry. Who even knows what the science is really saying anymore? Which scientists should one believe? That actually seems to be the conclusion drawn by the book, that science should be blind to funding. Which, theoretically, is a great idea. It’s just too bad Crichton has to bash most of the scientists on the planet in order to make that (arguably unrealistic) point. show less

The controversy about climate change as presented by Crichton brings in all of the right wing’s bogus scientific claims in an effort to refute the vast majority of the world's scientists. When it comes to scientific certainty about anything, of course, we can't be 100% sure. Crichton was likely in the chorus of industry nay sayers denying there was a problem with the ozone layer. What this reader can be certain about is that Crichton's book is poorly conceived diatribe against rational science and particularly against environmentalists who threaten to disrupt the profit flow to the fossil fuel industry. The nonsense he presents as science force fed to reader in the book is just ranting and pandering. He should have written an essay show more for a right wing publication instead. This is propaganda at its worst.

Crichton presents the tiny minority view that global warming is at the very least uncertain to the extreme position of the coal industry lobby that it just isn't happening. Around this right wing science (and he does offer selective facts) he constructs a plot in which diabolical environmentalists financed by a thinly disguised George Soros character, attempt to wreak destruction and mayhem. The plot, characters and story are in the service of debunking global warming. Remember, this is the guy who contrived to make sexual harassment an attack of (attractive) liberated women on moral men. They made a movie of that one. Note: the strong arm female characters abound is this book as well. Hopefully this distortion of discredited science masquerading as a novel won't go on to become another bit of celluloid right wing propaganda. I got this book as part of a two for package - the other book was considerably better. Vote with your dollars to send this to the trash bin and buy another book. show less

I enjoyed this book because it makes a lot of points concerning the dilution and manipulation of scientific data, and that really rang true for me. There is indeed pressure to put forth certain kinds of papers/data in order to get continued funding. Additionally, I think a lot of people should be on their toes when new BOOMING HEADLINES come forth, as a lot of the background information conveniently gets lost in the shuffle or words are taken out of context. Scientifically, those types of things are infuriating, and it's nice to read a book where that whole process, amplified, is your villain. (And, well, the murderers.)

These characters are honing on in on global warming. And it's interesting enough... but the repeated conversations do show more get a mite exhausting. Brace yourselves. I do think Crichton is playing a fierce devil's advocate, because he takes a milder, very rational stance in the author's notes (which I recommend people read). It is a work of fiction, so dedicated environmentalists shouldn't get too bent out of shape. Crichton generally researches his book topics very well -to what suits his story. Shall we argue that Jurassic Park could happen?

Beyond all that, if you can stomach the political side, there is a pretty high level of action and intrigue. The characters are fairly average, but again: action and intrigue. show less

This book a polemical tirade masquerading as a novel. Crichton took advantge of loyal fans by writing a not very good story and filling it with his personal diatribe against climate change science. His novel has footnotes, graphs, and charts - I'm not kidding.

Crichton traded on his name to peddle his views in an otherwise not entertaining book. I'm an ex-fan. On the other hand, Crichton will get his just desserts as he looks more and more like a foolish crank as the evidence piles up.