Book Review
- January 24th, 2005, 7:43 AM
- Posted in books . reviews
- Write comment
State of Fear – Michael Crichton
Provocative
Say whatever you want about the quality of his body of work, but one thing is indisputable, the man does his research. Furthermore, this book inspires me to do more of my own research. It made me (or has made me) genuinely interested in discovering just how much of his view is real vs. more media nonsense. The topic at hand is Global Warming, and this book dissects a view that I was not previously familiar with. In larger scope, it re-examines (not a new idea, by any stretch), just how much influence media, and politic-driven media, specifically has a rnd can have over our country, and in fact, the world’s perception of the problems we all face.
And finally, despite it being driven to just a single conversation in the book, the title gives it away for me. The conversation about 3/4 of the way through with the professor studying the ecology of thought, it is about fear. We are a society driven by it, and the media and politicians will always seek to ensure that we are that way. A society of Fear. Sad, really, but from what I can tell, completely founded in fact.I will leave you to your own opinions, but I definitely recommend this one. I urge all the eco-enviro-friendly folks to read this. I’d almost call it required reading. I’m not saying so because I, or the author, or the book, will prove you wrong … more that it will force you to make sure you’re fighting the RIGHT fight. There is a fight out there, and environmental awareness and management are key issues, but let’s make sure we’re fighting the right fight.
[xrr rating=7/10]
Ah, yeah, State of Fear. First, I haven’t read this book, second, I have read the opinions of a number of climatologists on the book. So, a few things to know about Critchon and his research. First, despite all his research he doesn’t understand the difference between climate and weather (and so sites it erroneously and anecdotally as statstical evidence). Similarly, he cherry-picked stats to support the view of the book (which is, apparently, his view as well).
Now, I don’t have a problem with someone writing a book with the plot of SoF. What I do have a problem is him implying that he’s done thorough and well-rounded (for last of a better term) research into the issue, when basically he didn’t.
Anyhow, at the end of the day, I think it comes down to this. Humanity pollutes a lot. We see evidence of it all over the place (and some of these are effects of gasses that are greenhouse cases, independently of their properties as such): toxicity in predators, acid rain, increased incidence of asthma, the list goes on and on. At best, climatically we can hope we have an insignificant effect. However, at worst, we’re pretty scewed in a century or so.
So, given how bad the already, definitively observable effects of pollution are, I think the case for reducing pollution is pretty good. The savings in health costs, lost worker productivity and clean up alone would probably offset a large fraction of the cost.
Oy, a link.
Holy smokes thats a lot of discussion. Anyone more interested in this topic should hit that link. Damn, snoop.