First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer than the surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well.Ĭrichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming. 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. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. 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 light of Crichton’s high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.įirst, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. 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. That-more than the merits of any scientific argument-is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. How do people learn about global warming?

The state of fear book