State of Fear, by Michael Crichton
I used to enjoy Michael Crichton books because
they tended to explore things on the edge of science, so I'd learn a little
something in my pulp fiction.
Then I
read Congo, which has a lot in it about computers. Crichton had a lot to say
about computers, too, and it was interesting, compelling, and educational -- or
so it seemed.
Unfortunately, I know a
little something about computers -- enough to know that while Crichton's stuff
was interesting and plausible, it was utterly full of crap. My mom might have
thought she learned something from that book, but what she learned was utter
hogwash, having nothing to do with
reality.
This is a common theme in his
books, from his genetic engineering and chaos theory stuff in Jurassic Park to,
unfortunately, his global warming science in State of
Fear.
His facts aren't as bad in State
of Fear as in some of his others. His data seems mostly accurate, though he
skews presentation and draws often misleading conclusions. While he doesn't
come right out and say that global warming isn't happening, he presents graph
after graph showing various cities whose temperatures have declined over the
past 150 years.
Despite not being all
that inaccurate, this book is practically porn for global warming deniers. The
Greens use their vast funding to hijack the media to mislead the public, and
actually stage huge disasters so they can blame corporate polluters and increase
support. Inexplicably, the critical attack involves creating an underwater
earthquake to create a tsunami that will destroy Los Angeles -- though I'm not
sure exactly who is supposed to have claimed that global warming affects
tsunamis.
He makes some good points.
Sometimes environmentalists do more harm than good. (For example, our
abandonment of nuclear power has caused us to rely on coal plants, which release
vastly more radioactive material -- not to mention skads of other environmental
problems -- than the dirtiest of nuke plants.) Much of the environmentalist
rhetoric is vastly exaggerated, and the understanding of the issues by the
average voter is pretty darned
weak.
I've talked about global warming
before, but I'll post a summary of the undisputed and disputed stuff again
sometime this week.
If one looks at
Crichton's book as urging us to look objectively at the issues, that's great.
Unfortunately, most readers are going to take away that they can stop thinking
about it because there's no real problem.
Filed Sun - June 25, 2006, 12:31 PM in
Return to: |