That—more than the merits of any scientific argument—is the most interesting question posed by
Michael Crichton's State of Fear.
The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness—an MIT professor fights a wellfunded
network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters.
But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making
two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high
profile and ability to command media attention, these
arguments deserve scrutiny.
First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for
global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the
conclusions reached by the National Academy of
Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change—for example, he does not believe that
global temperature increases in recent decades are
most likely the result of human activities. In
challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton
rehashes points familiar to those who follow such
issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained
below.
Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In
particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality,
failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members
of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia
and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately
unpersuasive as well.
View Full Opinion (PDF—289kb)