State of Fear

Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, tackles “politicized science” in his 2004 novel, State of Fear. While I thought the novel was chunky, filled with unpolished dialog, and hindered by hard to believe plot twists, I had to admire Crichton for taking on such a politically charged issue as global warming.

The basic premise of the book is that certain environmentalist groups are plotting to force action to be taken to stop global warming by launching a series of ecological catastrophes that validate their claims that global warming is an imminent threat to life on earth. Explosives are laid in Antarctica to break off a large chunk of ice, thunderstorms in Arizona are fueled by electrostatic generators to create a monster storm, and undersea explosives to create a tsunami that would swamp the western coast of the United States, all in conjunction with a global warming seminar.

Crichton is even-handed in his treatment of the subject of global warming, giving all sides adequate exposure. His main theme is that certain ecological groups have created a “State of Fear” by twisting data and manipulating computer simulations. He calls for a clear-minded approach that takes into account all the data as well as the consequences of intended actions. Check out his conclusions at: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/.

The appendix and author’s conclusion are some of the most helpful parts of the book. Crichton shows how little we really know about climate change and managing the environment. He gives some very powerful incidents where regulations were implemented that had disastrous ecological and economic results. Many of the proposed “solutions” are worse than the problem they claim to cure while others are so costly and provide minimal help, that the costs far exceed any useful benefit.


I found the author’s conclusion extremely helpful and valuable in sorting out the issues in global warming:

1. We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history to its present state, how to preserve and protect it.

2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause.

3. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850 as we emerged from a 400-year cold spell known as “the little ice age.”

4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomena.

5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.

6. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows.

7. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models I think it is reasonable to require the models to predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years, and twenty would be better.

8. There are many reason to shift away from fossil fuels and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear-mongers. As far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.

9. I find most environmental principles, such as “sustainable development” or the “precautionary principle,” have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West, and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the third world. They are a nice way of saying, “We got ours but we don’t want you to get yours because you’ll cause too much pollution.”

10. I believe people are well intentioned but I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.

11. We haven’t the foggiest notion of how to preserve what we term “wilderness” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conduction such research in a systematic way. I, therefore, hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmentalist groups as much as developers and strip miners; there is no difference in outcomes to greed and incompetence.

12. We need a new environmental movement with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and fewer lawyers.

13. We cannot hope to manage a complex system, such as the environment, through litigation.

14. We desperately need a non-partisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct scientific research that may have policy implications. Scientists are only too aware of who they are working for; as a result environmental organizational studies are every bit as biased and suspect as industry sponsored studies. Government studies are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. I am certain there is too much certainty in the world

15. I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those spent in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied that they will be preserved in sufficient quantities or with sufficient skill. I conclude the exploiters of the environment include: environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.

16. Everybody has an agenda, except me.