I just finished an interesting book last night called State of Fear by Michael Crichton. The book was pretty well written, although his characters often seem somewhat stilted and are somewhat interchangeable from work to work. Nonetheless, it was an enjoyable read. Moreover, Crichton's novels are always ingenious in concept and painstakingly researched which to me make them a great deal more interesting.
The reason that I wanted to post about this book was that I couldn't find a decent review of it anywhere. The material was quite controversial, flying in the face of conventional wisdom (which I am quick to point out is rarely ever conventional or well reasoned) concerning the issue of "Global Warming". The reviews of this book focused on the politics surrounding the concepts in it and the usual suspects--the New York Times et. al, were much more concerned with "debunking" the views in the book than doing anything useful, whereas "National Review" pointed to it as a new policy piece. What strikes me about this book is the use of a technique of rhetoric that is lost on these scholars.
All of the reviews that I read seemed to have been pre-characterized in the book. The author created a straw man argument in the course of the story and outlined how the argument would be debated by its opponents. In so doing he took the teeth out of their positions, and let them assume the role of the antagonists in the book. The book characterizes the Environmental Movement as self interested and out of touch. It points out that environmentalism is a very lucrative business and trillions of dollars have been spent in achieving its goals. Crichton's characters demonstrate that these goals are motivated mainly by politics, greed and ignorance often in the form of good intentions/ lack of knowledge pairings that are referred to as a "prescription for disaster". He further points out that years of policy have demonstrated few if any measurable results. What is so amazing is that environmentalists can't help but rush onto the poignard of their folly in arguing that they do care about the environment and that good intentions are much more important than beneficial outcomes.
The technique that Crichton uses is becoming more common-- a variation is at work in The DaVinci Code in which Dan Brown describes the pervasiveness of religious zealotry just in time for many religious people around the world to decry his writing as blasphemous. Further it seems to be used more commonly in political rhetoric. Sean Hannity is notorious for goading his critics then fencing them in by admonishing them about making Ad Hominem attacks. Using this manuever he can then define many of their arguments as this type of attack and in so doing eliminate their arsenal of debate points.
Overall I found this book very enjoyable and I am confident that there is a scientific basis for what Crichton has done here. He is careful to not only document his sources, but to include a discussion at the close of the novel pointing out what he sees as challenges and some potential solutions. It is always important to remember that voices of dissention about contentious issues have often been a springboard for progress. Conventional Wisdom in 1492 predicted that Columbus would topple over the edge of a flat earth. How close is this analogy to Global warming? Ask me in 500 years.
