State of Fear

bq. Crichton's novels often tackle cutting-edge technology and its implementation, but his latest addresses an issue that's been around for a bit longer: global warming. Millionaire George Morton is about to donate $10 million to the National Environmental Research Fund (NERF) when he suddenly decides against it. His lawyer, Peter Evans, is as surprised as anyone and is drawn into a web of intrigue after Morton's car careens off the road and Morton is presumed dead. Just before his "death," Morton was in contact with Dr. John Kenner, a researcher at the Center for Risk Analysis, who opposes NERF's agenda and presents Evans with some startling evidence about global warming. With Evans and Morton's assistant, Sarah, in tow, Kenner travels to Antarctica, where he learns that a group of environmental extremists are planning several attacks of environmental terror to convince the world of impending ecological disaster. The thrills in Crichton's latest are interspersed with fascinating but occasionally dense ecological facts and data, but he backs his assertions about the unpredictability of climate change with copious research and footnotes. Perhaps his most serious and important book yet. _Kristine Huntley_


aj January 26, 2006

I’m sure it’s a great read, but more than a few scientists have pointed out that the climate “science” in the book has largely been debunked. Like here.

Patrick January 31, 2006

You’re kind of making his point actually. The whole book is about how global warming is being built up as a cause and defended at all cost. Some of the research used follows nowhere near the standards that other fields do. Researchers finding the funding, collecting the data, analysing the data and presenting results with no review, no separation between the collecting and the analysis, etc. It’s also about how some of the environmental groups are bunches of lawyers fighting for donations, not looking for the truth or even to solve problems. About those same groups using misleading numbers to hype up their view of things. About demonizing those that don’t think their way instead of fostering healthy debate. He’s also not against the environment, he’s against making it a “Cause” and for a more level headed straight talk debate. Some of the science he presents he’s not even defending much, just presenting to show how diverging opinions are immediately treated as kooks and put between apostrophes like you did when referring to his science.

Comments closed