State of Fear

"Crichton at his best. Well researched (check out the extensive bibliography at the back) and well written. I devoured all 714 pages of it (yes, it's long)."

"I enjoyed this book right up until the end which completely ruined it for me. "

"The beginning was a little confusing and introduced quite a few characters that seemed unrelated. There were a few that were never followed up on as well. Once I got into the story though, and it made sense, it was quite good. I found myself reading for more than an hour at a time because I got so caught up in the story. This book really makes you think more critically about the whole environmental movement. Main characters are Peter Evans, George Morton, John Kenner, Sarah, Jennifer, and Nick Drake."

"Remember that time in 2004 when Michael Crichton wrote a climate-change skepticism book? Neither do I. That's why I was so surprised to come across this book as I was researching my 2017 reading focus on "The Integrity of Western Science." In "State of Fear", Crichton attacks the scientific consensus around climate change. With biting sarcasm and an abundance of scientific footnotes, he points out much of the hypocrisy and cynicism within the environmental movement. To underscore his point, he includes a few particularly gruesome deaths for the targets of his vitriol. The book reads like a typical Crichton, with poorly developed and highly stereotyped characters and a lot of "gee-whiz" science thrown in. But it is most interesting as a commentary on scientific integrity. I listened to the audiobook version, so I don't have highlights for this book. Instead, I've included the full text of Crichton's "Aliens Cause Global Warming" 2003 Michelin Lecture at CalTech on my site.<br/><br/>One of the major themes of both the book and the speech is "consensus" in science. In the real world, this is a phrase that we hear a lot in the context of climate science. From a philosophy of science perspective, Crichton's most interesting claim is that consensus should play no role in science:<blockquote>I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.</blockquote>and:<blockquote>In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.</blockquote>Now that I've been reading more philosophy of science, this seems to be what Godfrey-Smith in his "Theory and Reality" would characterize as a reaction to the paradigm-driven philosophy of science described by Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". These are issues that I struggle with too. In his speech, Crichton singles out Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" as the victim of a "consensus science" witch-hunt. I'm adding it to my reading list to evaluate the merits myself. But I am more familiar with the Sagan "Nuclear Winter" and Ehrlich "Population Bomb" failures. Crichton is not wrong to point out their ideologically-driven pseudo-scientific hyping of overblown claims that rested on dubious computer modeling of complex, real-world systems. I'm left in a state of doubt.<br/><br/>Full review and Crichton's speech at <a href="https://books.max-nova.com/state-of-fear">https://books.max-nova.com/state-of-fear</a>"

"I wanted to like this book. I love every other Michael Crichton book I’ve ever read. Just wasn’t into this one."