Revived today the best novel on “global warming” could be explosive.
Guest essay by Walter Donway
I guess that if I discovered “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton eleven years after its publication in 2004–reading it last summer with indescribable surprise and joy–you can tolerate a year-old review.
This book could be the 1984 of “Big Climate Alarmism.” After George Orwell took on “doublespeak,” people never listened to political rhetoric in the same way. Whatever you think of the controversial “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand, do you think arguments for the “greed” of businessmen and the moral loftiness of statism will ever be heard the same way?
Michael Critchton was perhaps the most scientifically literate and technologically brilliant best-selling novelist of our time. It turns out he was one of the most courageous, too. Fortunately, by the time he published “State of Fear,” a pounding thriller with more than 200 scientific footnotes meticulously documenting its all-assault on Big Climate Alarmism, his reputation was unassailable. Because, when he published it, the man who had written “The Andromeda Strain,” “Congo,” “Terminal Man,” “Jurraisic Park,” and “E.T.E.R.” got few reviews and those were mostly awful. Groups of scientists wrote letters scorning the science in the book.
Crichton never flinched. The book gave him a reputation as a climate change skeptic and in 2005 he testified before a Senate committee and had a private visit with President George W. Bush to discuss the issue.
Crichton died three years later, so we can never know if his popularity and reputation would have recovered from this astonishing act of integrity and devotion to science. He did it for the American people, but, I suspect, more out lifelong respect for science, which he saw squandering its reputation on “global warming.”
The problem was that in 2004 “global warming” still had tremendous momentum, all the excitement of discovery. The work of critics had only begun; there was not then the constituency for “The State of Fear”–to support it, publicize it, promote it–that there is today. Had there been, I believe it could have transformed the debate in the public mind.
What is astounding is that back in 2004, Crichton saw it all. As I write in the review:
“Melting glaciers, icebergs calving off Antarctic glaciers, worldwide weather records, rising sea levels, satellite measurements of atmospheric warming, correlation of carbon dioxide with warming, expanding or contracting deserts: State of Fear takes them on, and many others, with the ease that Agatha Christie presents clues to a murder.
“What will stop many readers, and not once, is the question: If these are the facts, what science actually says, then how in Hell do the shibboleths of global warming keep proliferating? Crichton’s answers include: dozens or hundreds of complicated issues raised when you discuss the history and future of the whole Earth, its geology, its inhabitants, its atmosphere, and its oceans; lack of almost any adequate data on any aspect of the debate; the deadly ‘precautionary principle’ that in the absence of enough data, assume that the most catastrophic prediction might be true and prepare (that is: with the least data, take the most extreme actions); the enormous self-interest of scientists funded almost overwhelmingly by a single source (government) that already has embraced the answer; the ever-shifting timeframes (most predictions with a 10-year horizon already have been falsified by events) that keep getting longer; changes in the hypothesis (from the idea that temperature will rise over a century to ‘abrupt weather changes’ today demonstrate global warming); and on and on.
“Incredibly, it all comes into the story—usually riding on a roller coaster of action or borne by a lover’s quarrel.”
Nothing could be more hopeful, today, with with Big Climate Alarmists succeeding, at least in America, in making their views government policy, than a wide revival of this powerful antidote. Candidates of the two parties for President have diametrically opposite views and “global warming,” but the mainstream media is like a crooked umpire on the take.
I urge you to get involved. Fortunately, reading “State of Fear” is not only hugely informative and heartening, it is thrilling.
The review is here:
http://www.thesavvystreet.com/state-of-fear-gets-hotter-with-global-warming/
The book is available on Amazon here:
@docduke
Curiously I’m reading the book you refer to right now. It’s called ‘Next’.
All the science is there and an unnerving read it certainly is.
In many ways ‘Next’ is a Sir Terry Pratchett-ish book – i,e, take a concept, and turn it up until the knob falls off! But I must add that it was his “State of Fear” that turned me away from the CAGW fear promulgated by the MSM, and his endnotes got me bouncing around the ‘skeptic’ sites on the Web – ending up here.
Um … Crichton did not write “E.T.”
That is that I thought, too.
Great, great book. Crichton really scared the hell out of the Global Warming Industry.
I have long recommended State of Fear as the best introduction to the warming/climate scam, especially for non-scientists such as myself.
It’s great to see this excellent book so well reviewed & praised on this fine site.
John Doran.
In addition to “State of Fear” and “Climate Change: the Facts” You may also wish to view “Climate” the Counter Consensus”. But for my money the best factual book on Climate Change/ Greenhouse and all the rest of the malarkey, is “Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change”. It was written by the late Professor Robert Carter and others, and is published by Kelpie Press. ISBN: 9780646902180. Its only drawback is that it was written in 2013 to counter the then recently introduced Carbon Dioxide Tax. Apart from that, it is excellent, and we have now got rid of the so-called “Carbon Tax”!
Good for scientists and non-scientists alike.
as of JULY 1st this yr we have the carbon tax back mate
BOTH parties agreed to allow its implementation
done on the sly naff all aussies are even aware
If you want a book about climate change and science -specifically about how science is done and how science and government work in the US – try ‘Green Earth’ by Kim Stanley Robinson
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25279447-green-earth
I’ve been seeking actual research into his lightning attractor thingimabob and have tried to meet with several specialists in physics who were leaning in this direction, but when I arrived all I found were burnt holes into the ground.
Another disturbing take-away from “State of Fear”: the idea that corporate non-state actors who did not possess actual spy hardware such as network intercepts or taps… could, nevertheless, engage in ‘finest quality’ surveillance of Internet populations by monitoring Internet search activity.
That bit in State of Fear inspired me to write this short essay, “Information Land Mines” in 2006.
What if… you had just committed an particularly evil crime that (unavoidably) had left a few clues laying in plain sight, and wished to arrange an ‘accident’ for anyone who happened to stumble on to those clues? Say, several keywords that, if they were strung together in an Internet search would clearly indicate that someone was had noticed the clues, was zeroing in on the truth and is clearly intent on unraveling them. Easy peasy in the 21st century! All you need to do is spend a few bucks to buy a few Google ad-words and create a little honeypot on the web as a tripwire that would draw them to you.
How to prevent the laying and triggering of these ‘information land mines’?
Strive to investigate and solve egregious crimes quickly, as a coordinated effort.
Strive to prevent deep network surveillance by simply not building the infrastructure to do it.
Strive to find people with the traditional ethos of the Postman, who carries mail without opening it.
“Small, unremembered acts of privacy… are the only conceivable way to make a world that is becoming more like a dangerous city every day… more like a small town again. A better place to raise our children.”
It’s been ten years since I wrote that essay. How do we score? Not very well.
I read it ago and think I’ll read it over again.
When I went to the Salk Institute they told me about Michael Crichton being there. Although he was not a scientist, his medical training and his postdoctoral stay at the Salk with some of the greatest scientists in the biological field like Salk or Luria gave him a very good scientific background. He was perfectly capable of researching scientific issues as he demonstrated in his books.
Reading all the comments it is obvious that SOF was the introduction to CAGW for a lot of sceptics / WUWT followers, as it was for me.
I also read this book. But I had a different takeaway message. The message I had when I read this book is that science should only seek to find the truth. As stated at the end, scientific studies favor those whom fund them. So all funding should be anonymous and given out despite the results. The researchers should have no way of ever knowing who or what is funding them. I believe Michael Crichton used global warming to as a vehicle to deliver that message.
Did anybody bother to check the references in the book? I checked a few. Of my limited checking, I found some to be completely honest and some left out some important details. This is why I believe the book is not a commentary on global warming, but a commentary on how greedy science is today.
I too was awakened by Crichton and this book. Michael Crichton had two principle concerns concerning science and society, which led to his criticism of global warming. First, he warned against governments capturing science as a tool to cow the population into funding and submitting to politicians’ policies. Second, he thought scientists in many fields were far too certain and trusting of their knowledge and tools, especially computerized systems.
A tribute to his contribution.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/in-praise-of-michael-crichton/
SOF is far too didactic in tone to be a great book but it is an important book for all that.
Id had started to wake up to the scam, and state of fear completed it for me,
sad loss
The sad part though is that the eco-Marxists appear to be still winning, particularly in Canada and the US>
I have never been concerned about CAGW to the degree of my concern of “eco-Marxists” control of man’s economic systems through deceptive political means.
And Climate Change is just a deceptive politically-driven means to an end.
But Nature will prove or disprove catastrophic global warming in due time.
But of something like Brexit, how does one prove or disprove the UK has selected the right path? Now I am confident they (the majority of UK voters) have taken the best course (assuming Teresa May can muster the will and find a backbone), but that is entirely a human system. Once the UK is “out” there will be no way to compare to how they’d be if they stayed. Of course that won’t stop economists from trying, but those will be mere hypothetical comparisons.
If the British economy manages growth, above what the major European economies (France, Germany, Italy) show, I would be satisfied that Brexit was the right move. If they manage to match, then it’s a toss up! It’s really not a high bar!
I think you’re both missing the point, and that voted for by the majority…immigration. It was never about economics, never, not once. And the economics actually don’t matter one little bit. The ‘right path’ was anything that gave us back control of our own destiny, of our own borders. What good would a thriving economy be, an economy better than any other nation on earth…if you couldn’t swing a cat in a field without hitting someone with it? It’s a tiny island, with 64 million people on it. To raise that to 74 million in just a few years is unthinkable. You could have all the money in the world, but what good will that do you if your kids can’t get into a school, if you have a 10-hour wait in A&E, or a 2-month wait to see your GP?
Kenkulak, I disagree. Look at the political momentum of Donald Trump. This presidential election is likely the biggest, by far, battle in this war against the econuts. It might even be the final battle, if Trump wins. He will make scorched earth of these ridiculous greenie policies. I am doing everything I can to ensure he wins.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mrloganrhoades/who-are-you-voting-for-in-the-presidential-election?utm_term=.ph0Vp5DoD#.oa0lkYw0w
according to buzzfeed, you are not real…lol
Average joe is right, at least in the US. Canada is a little behind you and always is. We were jealous of JFK and wanted our own charismatic leader so we elected Pierre Trudeau a few years after the assassination of JFK. We were also jealous of the youthful and articulate Obama and so true to form we elected Justin Trudeau.
Maybe our next PM will be more like Trump?
I’m with you Joe. Watching the stupid nonsense being thrown at Trump by the liberal/left and their obedient media makes you realise just how scared of him they are.
The wonderful thing about democracy is that numbers matter. I am doing everything I can to get the Trump vote out. These are remarkable times indeed. To be presented with a clear choice between old and new politics such as we have is very exciting.
It is a book worthy of re-reading. Crichton was a master, and I don’t recall ever reading a novel with references before. RIP Dr.
I remember this book changed my attitude to the climate debate. In fact I wasn’t even aware there was a debate. I’d accepted everything I was told, that everything was changing and it was our fault. Afterwards I became a sceptic which I have remained. But, good heavens it was a bad book. Poor dialogue, awful charecterisations, unbelievable events. From a great author like Crichton a poor offering indeed.
Loved Crichton’s works. Lent my copy of ‘State of Fear’ to my dentist, who loved it as well. When he tried to return the book to me, I had him pass it on to his friends.
Well, Climategate pretty much confirmed every single allegation Crichton made in that novel. As I remember, he set out to write a scary novel about Global Warming, and studying the subject turned him into a skeptic – pretty much the road anyone who decides to (honestly) look into it travels. I remember trying to give it to a couple of eco-sympathizing friends and was dismissively told ‘he’s a science fiction writer’. Well, actually it’s ‘Doctor’ Crichton, but that’s neither here nor there – but then when Climategate broke, and I outlined every single point Crichton made had been validated, I was sent a series of rationalization stories about pseudo-investigations in a variety of Kangaroo courts, as well as reports back from Copenhagen – basically complete denial from the greenie crowd. But that’s what this kind of political atmosphere – as liberalism takes its natural course into Progressivism, militancy, and totalitarianism – does to otherwise intelligent people – it closes their minds.
Of course, then there’s the crowd where the message goes completely over their head. I gave the book to a lady-friend who, halfway through, told me she ‘really hoped Peter and Sara get together’.
Sigh.
Darwin trained for the ministry.
Was this reply for me? I don’t doubt you, but I don’t understand the significance.
I thought Crichton’s novel was excellent. I also think his lecture at Caltech is excellent reading. Here’s a six year old link to our own WUWT report on it. Enjoy:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
When I was having this “discussion” with my daughter, I pointed her at that post. Kinda got her thinking for once. My stand-by line in talking about CAGW with true believers is a paraphrase from that: “A theory that can mean anything means nothing.”
One detail of the book which I found interesting was the statistics on malaria. Based on limited research into DDT, the UN prohibited DDT use for agriculture. The theory was that mosquitoes were becoming immune to DDT due to overuse. The effect of the ban made DDT all but impossible for poorest nations to purchase. In the first year after this regulation, worldwide malaria deaths rose from 25,000 to 1 million before the UN modified the rules to allow “limited spraying”.
This is a staggering indictment of aggressive environmental activism, but the world seems to have learned the wrong lessons. In 2005, I found these basic facts easy to confirm with data. Time Magazine or NatGeo even ran an article on the subject with a huge foldout leaf of malaria deaths with a huge spike in that year.
Now, it is almost impossible to find the confirming data. There are many “apologetic” videos and blogs which claim that these facts are distortions. However, the actual numbers are almost impossible to find. This is supposed to be the “information age”. Who has the power to restrict that information?
Now, we have regular cries about how malaria will get worse under warming. The reality is that malarial mosquitoes are migrating northward into the wealthier nations who had been able to all but eliminate malaria fifty years ago. It’s not Climate Change — after all, Washington DC was a malarial swamp in the middle of the Little Ice Age.
It takes an environmental activist to really maximize a Holocaust.
‘Who has the power to restrict that information?’
Coordination and consolidation of search engines like Yahoo and Google – both their CEOs are big greenies and determined to control the message. It’s just that simple. It’s also the way most media outlets operate – the editorial decisions are made by a handful of people – that’s why so many stories repeat – not just the message – but exactly the same verbiage.
Controlling the message. First step to totalitarianism.
Yes, another indication – the day the latest scare story about CO2 hitting the supposedly significant (not) “threshold” of 400ppm, my efforts to open up WUWT via the usual use of my search engine (Bing, in this case) yielded nothing but links to websites deriding WUWT or totally unrelated sites using the word
“watts.” Amazing. And creepy.
That’s the book that opened my eyes. I can’t say enough good about it!
Many of Michael Crichton’s speeches, all available, are also well worth reading.
As genuine skeptics weigh the pros and cons, here is a scientific rebuttal to State of Fear.
[RealClimate is made up of “genuine skeptics”? what a WHOPPER! Two words: Mike Mann. ICYMI co-founder of RC. Your comment is one of the most dogmatically ridiculous I’ve ever seen. – Anthony]
Anthony,
I believe Barry meant the phrase “genuine skeptics” to refer to the WUWT audience…
Thank you. Now I have many months of YouTube videos to watch and other media compilations to entertain. Already, the first speech I viewed by Dr. Crichton helped me to see the reason behind spectacular prediction failures. Just think of how many times Paul Ehrlich has been quoted and cited. It’s the same time-dependent counting exercise for the Kardashians. It’s a volumetric issue, not truth or accuracy.