State of Fear

Last week, I stopped by my local book place, Sundance Bookstore, to pick up the New York Times to get a look at that great community-supported Mozilla Firefox ad as seen here. While there, I remembered that I had heard mention that Michael Crichton had a new fiction book out, State of Fear, and I bought it without hesitation. I enjoy a good diversion, and this weekend provided the perfect opportunity.

I read half last night and the rest this morning, devouring and then pondering the various questions and ideas thrown at the reader. Before I get too deep into an analysis, perhaps I should warn you that this may contain a few spoilers, but not many. For the most part, I would like to discuss the scientific details and some of the grander notions of research, society, and the media.

To begin, this novel serves, in my mind, two purposes: one being purely entertainment and the other being opinion/thesis/argument against the recent western societal uproar surrounding global warming. While the plot is interesting and has a very intricately woven pattern of deception, greed, power, chase scenes, and climax action, Crichton uses his characters, primarily MIT professor gone undercover agent Kenner, to persuade the reader against the juggernaut that is global warming. From the outset, one should recognize that this book is proving rather unpopular, as can be seen here, here and here. That is not to say that these people do not have any basis for their frustration with Crichton’s stance. Of course there is room for argument on these facts, but Crichton goes further, elucidating how both sides overstate their positions and neither side admits to the simple fact of life: we can never be 100% sure.

For one, Crichton makes a clear point that people often get caught up in what they hear and what they stand for, allowing their personal convictions to be used as definite proof a particular phenomenon is real. Hence, people often ignore evidence contrary to their beliefs or will attempt to spin the new evidence as either flawed, wrong or misinterpreted. Certainly, this has some validity: people are stubborn and hate change. Life would be chaotic if people did not have some firm beliefs, but our intransigence should not override facts of science. Mix in this observation with the global warming movement and politics and society really starts to get out of hand because now people are using politics to shape shared knowledge (on both sides). This is dangerous, as Crichton points out, because the people collecting and analyzing the data are now subject to those that fund their research. Crichton hints several times though exchanges between the characters’ various Q & A sessions with Kenner that such funding should be blind and not be given on the contingent of an end result but rather simply for continuing work. As he points out, people, including scientists, can be influenced by beliefs in how the results could turn out. Put simply, people hate to be wrong.

Crichton’s primary thesis is rather simple and is directly stated at the end of the book as an afterward: the complexity and countless variables that affect climate cannot be reliably predicted or controlled; therefore, in short, global warming is not a great concern and even if true, may or may not be due in part to human activity or normal waxing and waning of Earth’s climate in general. This is interesting that he would have the audacity to challenge an arguably, mainstream position. His statements are, however, quite convincing on some levels. For one, Crichton spent a great deal of time researching the data himself, and provides footnotes while reading and an extensive bibliography at the end of the book. In addition, he presents some societal evidence for people accepting basic truisms doled out by the media including rapidly rising usage of words like catastrophe since global warming was outed by scientists and the environmental movement in the late 80s. As noted on some web sites, he has some scientific errors with regards to weather and climate.

Although frustrated by the apparent politicization of the issues, Crichton does not dismiss environmental responsibility outright. Of course human beings, as the dominant species on this plant, must take some control over our activities and understand how what we do alters the fragile ecosystems of this world that we call home. To not do so would be criminal. Maybe the entire global warming argument is moot altogether because it really does not matter either way who or what is to blame for it: we still have a responsibility to understand this world and be conscious of our impact on it.

At the end of the day, there are several points that I must concede:

• I am often distressed when the media, corporations, environmentalists, and other organizations simplify the issues discussed here to simple, catch-all phrases. Dispersing such euphemisms is a detriment to the end goal most should have in mind: limit our effect on the environment by careful, thoughtful regulation of emissions, etc.
• Of course there is evidence that our species has altered the atmosphere of the planet in some manner (elevated levels of CO₂, increased CFCs and aerosols, more particulate matter), but why do so few realize that the Earth is a dynamic place. People often speak in grand terms of “maintaining our ecosphere” without even realizing that maybe some changes are bound to happen. Crichton did an excellent job at the end of the book in raising this very point. The Earth has gone through three different atmospheres in its long billions of years in existence and has undergone cold and warm periods. It stands to reason that these changes are still happening, and we may be seeing such changes.
• Science should be de-politicized. Period. End of sentence. Of course, it would naïve to believe this were possible, but one should say that it ought be done, and efforts need be made to that end.

• Being environmentally conscious is not in contradiction to beliefs either way about global warming: global warming is a scientific question and should remain one. By realizing this, we can proceed with learning more about the Earth, its ways, and how we can stop pollution regardless of current Earth climate patterns.

  As any moron who follows politics could foresee, there are those that have lined up quite nicely behind Crichton’s work. I hope Crichton protects his work by now allowing it to be used as fodder by either side of this ferocious debate. The work should stand on its own and be debated. Some of the sites to which I have linked do a better job of it than others at this, so please take note. In conclusion, I would say that this book evokes thought and imagination, reviving a debate replete with banality and rejuvenating it with new ideas to ponder. This, in itself, is reason to read this book. Beware, however, the preaching that tends to occur through the character I noted above, as he tends to dance circles around his fellow conversationalists vis à vis climate talks.