I have read almost every Crichton book and just like you concluded, that is usually his message, a bit of humility about our knowledge or lack thereof goes a long way in avoiding catastrophic consequences.
It's not really about climate change because the climate has always changed. The question is how much responsibility do humans have? And from what I can see it's usually only local and the earth has systems in place to counteract anything we do.
While I like your take on forming of opinions I think you should give the novel - or at least appendix 1- another good read. You using the word "denier" is the first thing that would make Mr. Crichton turn in his grave. Using it to label proponents of an alternative hypothesis is as cringe as using the word "concensus" to cement the "correct" hypothesis (which you didn't do but which is standard practice in climate science [or rather climate politics]). Secondly (and that's another turn) you suggest Mr. Crichton is after all still not denying "climate change" which is imprecise in its phrasing and its implications. The question is whether *anthropogenetic* climate change *due to excess co2 emmisions* is happening. And Mr. Crichton is opposing and rejecting this idea as strongly as can be. RU-vid has several talks of him on this topic ("crichton climate" will get you started) and it is super clear he thinks it's utter bogus. (To which I, as an avid reader of papers on the topic, whole-heartedly agree btw).
You did a good job with your review. I Just finished my second read of "State of Fear". Really got me to thinking (which is actually a good thing) about the conclusions of climate change/global warming and has led to more research. What I am finding is that the "science" behind the climate change debate are dubious. The more I investigate the more I am convinced that the science is not settled. We must never stop questioning.
In the mid to late 2000's into the 2010's. A hacker began leaking internal emails of the IPCC. These emails showed that nearly all of the core data collected for study were either massaged or outright changed. As the numbers they were getting did not match their assumptions. And when plugged into their computer modeling gave them results that flatly contradicted their predictions. Even after messaging and falsifying the data, they still could never match their claims in modeling.
@@SnarkyPhysicist state of fear would probably be my favorate. Jurassic park probably comes in second. I've read a lot of his books. Congo is pretty good as well.
Thank you for reviewing this book with an open mind. Hope you will realize that the world is not coming to an end. Reading all the conclusions of the IPCC reports since it's founding and how well their predictions have panned out would make anyone a skeptic. It also forced me to learn more about the oceans and the atmosphere, more so than if they were close to being right (in which case I would have said "close enough" and went on to other subjects of more interest). Again - thank you for the review.
When Crichton started writing State Of Fear, he believed in man-made global warming. He was going to write about hardline anti-global warming terrorists. However, as he began researching the science and looking into the groups on both sides. He realized he had to change his story, for it to be authentic. He has stated that in some ways he regrets writing this book. He lost long time friends and the medua made him a pariah. Attacking him at every opportunity. For simply telling the truth.
Great review. All the stats that Mr. Crichton put out about the deniability of climate change did bother me. I just wish he were here to think about it again. And your comment about somebody who is smarter than you disagrees with you, yet someone ho is smarter than them actually agrees with you. We need to keep our minds open.
I wish he was still here today too. No doubt he would have written books about how crazy political warfare has gotten. I loved state of fear because it asks a lot of hard questions that no one wants to answer, considering a very small group of people are able to swing statistics in a way that convinces the world of a fabricated reality
Michael was a man ahead of his time. It's our loss he passed when he did. I loved this book.. I'm a numbers person and the graphs shown do not support global warming to the extent that's pushed onto the public media. Michael shows by graphs that we experience climate change in cycles that far exceed our lifespans. Our earth is in constant change is my point. Nothing we do will significantly alter these cycles.
@@Mrdestiny17 It's one of my favorite books, beside of Asimovs/Silverbergs Nightfall. Crichton was a great thriller author. One of the best writers ever, IMHO. But I have to admit, I read the german version. Not in original english. 😊
'Climate change': the fact of _natural cycles_ in a planetary climate, regardless who dwells on earth's surface. 'Environmentalism': the ideology that dictating people's way of life by totalitarian social engineering will change the weather. The main approach of this movement is _a transnational 'global governance'_ , bypassing national legislatory assemblies - that itself is evidence of a presence _of ideology_ - as mere national and local education toward a less industrialized, more long term sustainable economy is never proposed. It may very well be that cutting down trees while burning them - in addtion to burning fossile plant remains en masse - creates a 'greenhouse effect', but the outcome will be the same when it were the end of 'a minor ice age': to fight over the politics of the 'true faith', crossing legitimate, existential interests, after which the human population will be dramatically reduced due to avanced warfare and the usually accompanying famines. To look for another religion than a mere *secular utopia* will be more comforting when another cataclysm is due.
