State of Fear

State of Fear

First edition cover
Author	Michael Crichton
Language	English
Genre	Science fiction, Techno-thriller, Dystopian novel
Publisher	HarperCollins
Publication date	December 7, 2004
Publication place	United States
Media type	Print (Hardcover)
Pages	640
ISBN	0007181590
OCLC	56759026
Preceded by	Prey
Followed by	Next

State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and reached the #1 bestseller position at Amazon.com and #2 on the New York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005. The book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a twenty page bibliography, which have given many people the impression that the book has scientific authority. Many climate scientists dispute Crichton's science as being error-filled and distorted.

Overview

State of Fear is, like many of Crichton's works, a fictional work that uses science and speculation for the storyline. The debate over global warming serves as the backdrop for the book. Crichton supplies a personal afterword and two appendices that link the fictional part of the book with real examples of his thesis.

The main villains in the plot are environmentalists. Crichton does place blame on "industry" in both the plot line and the appendices. Various assertions appear in the book, for example:

• The science that supports or does not support the theory behind global warming is so incomplete that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn on how to solve the "problem" (or if the "problem" even exists).

• Elites in various fields use either real or artificial crises to maintain the existing social order, misusing the "science" behind global warming.

• As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources.

Crichton argues for removing politics from science and uses global warming and real-life historical examples in the appendices to make this argument. In a 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology he expressed his concern about what he considered the "emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science—namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy."

Plot summary

The novel takes place in 2004. The plot is built around a group of eco-terrorists who are attempting to create a state of fear to further advance their agenda regarding global warming.

The protagonist is an environmentalist lawyer named Peter Evans. Evans is a junior associate at a large Los Angeles law firm that represents many environmentalist clients (although they also have clients in industry). Evans is described as someone who eagerly accepts all conventional wisdom about global warming, but not unquestioningly. He is also described as something of a weak willed person who has lukewarm relationships with women. Evans' chief client is a millionaire philanthropist, George Morton, who donates large sums to environmentalist causes. Evans' main duties are managing the legal affairs surrounding Morton's contributions to an environmentalist organization, the National Environmental Resource Fund (NERF) (modeled after the Sierra Club).

Morton becomes suspicious of NERF and its director, Nicholas Drake, after he discovers that NERF has misused some of the funds he has given the group. Soon after, Morton is visited by two men, John Kenner and Sanjong Thapa, who appear on the surface to be researchers at MIT, but, in fact, are international law enforcement agents on the trail of an eco-terrorist group, the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF) (modeled on the Earth Liberation Front). The ELF is attempting to create "natural" disasters to convince the public of the dangers of global warming; all these events are timed to happen during a NERF-sponsored climate conference that will highlight the "catastrophe" of global warming. The eco-terrorists have no qualms about how many people are killed in their manufactured "natural" disasters and ruthlessly assassinate anyone who gets in their way (their preferred methods being ones few would recognize as murder; the venom of a rare Australian Blue-ringed octopus which causes a form of paralysis most hospitals mistake for a disease and therefore never successfully treat and "lightning attractors" which cause their victims to get electrocuted in electrical storms). Kenner and Thapa suspect Drake of involvement with the ELF to further his own ends (garnering more donations to NERF from the environmentally-minded public).

Morton pulls his funding from NERF and has Evans rewrite the contract so that Drake can't access the money except in small amounts. This earns Drake's wrath resulting in strained relations between Evans and the partners at his firm (Drake is a major client of the firm and accuses Evans of being a spy for corporate industry). NERF holds a banquet in Morton's honor citing him as "NERF's Concerned Citizen of the Year"; at the event Morton gives a rambling speech in which he announces the pulling of his funding. Morton subtly makes this look due to his having drunk too much on the flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco where he was accompanied by two of NERF's biggest supporters (Ted Bradley, an actor and celebrity endorser of NERF, and Ann Garner, a wealthy socialite) and Evans. Soon after the speech, Morton dies in a car accident under mysterious circumstances. Following Morton's last instructions, Evans teams up with Kenner and Thapa on a globe-spanning trip to thwart various ELF disaster schemes. Also along for the ride is Morton's beautiful assistant, Sarah Jones. Evans is intimidated by Sarah because of her beauty and because she possesses a self-confidence Evans lacks. By the same token, Sarah also finds Evans attractive, but is put off by his lack of bravado.

A subplot parallels the main plot and is the driving force for many of Evans' actions later on, at the behest of Morton. Morton has promised to donate $10 million to support a class action lawsuit on behalf of the people of the fictional island nation Vanutu. The suit claims that by its inaction to curb global warming the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has doomed Vanutu to destruction, technically an act of war, because when sea levels increase by the amount that "most" climate models predict the nation will be underwater. At Morton's behest, Evans pays a visit to the offices of the legal team that is preparing the suit, where he volunteers to be a pre-jury selection interviewee. The interviewer is Jennifier Haynes, who presents him with various pieces of evidence that she feels the defense will use in an attempt to discredit the "science" behind the lawsuit. Later she reveals that the lawsuit is just an elaborate publicity stunt. The parties who initiated it know that it will never succeed. They only want to create a legal action that will drag on for years, giving them numerous opportunities to dramatize the plight of the islanders as they cope with the "catastrophe" of global warming. Later, Haynes reveals herself to be Kenner's niece and in league with him.

Kenner, Sanjong, Evans and Sarah travel to various locations to sabotage the ELF's planned "natural" disasters: first, the detonation of several explosives in an Antarctic ice shelf to release an enormous iceberg, then the use of special rockets and filament wire to produce a man-made lightning storm and flood in a crowded national park. During his travels, Evans finds his convictions about global warming challenged by Kenner and Sanjong who present him with reams of data suggesting that global warming may not be happening at all, may be insignificant if it is, and may not be caused by human activity. Evans' convictions are further shaken as he observes the ELF trying to manufacture disasters that will kill thousands of people, discovers that Drake is directing these terrorist acts, and narrowly escapes several ELF assassination attempts. He also begins to shed his weak-willed demeanor and grows more enamored of Sarah after he saves her life on several occasions. After NERF disbands the legal team that was preparing the Vanutu suit Jennifier joins the group for the final leg of the trip.

In the finale of the story, the group travels to a remote island in the Solomons to stop the ELF's "piece de resistance", a tsunami that will inundate the coastline of California just as Drake is winding up the international conference on the "catastrophe" of global warming. Along the way they battle man-eating crocodiles and cannibalistic tribesmen (who feast on Ted Bradley, whom Drake had sent to spy on Kenner and his team). The rest of the group are rescued in the nick of time by Morton who resurfaces. It turns out that he faked his own death to throw Drake off the trail so that he could keep watch on the ELF's activities on the island while he waited for Kenner and his team to arrive. The group has a final confrontation with the elite ELF team on the island during which Jennifer is almost killed and Evans kills one of the terrorists who had tried to kill both him and Sarah in Antarctica. The rest of the ELF team is killed by the backwash from their own tsunami, which Kenner and his team have sabotaged just enough to prevent it from becoming a full-size tsunami and reaching California. (The tsunami that reached California was only a series of five waves averaging 6 feet.) None of the team were allowed to leave the island for the next three days. Morton wanted to be taken to Melbourne for his collapsed lung, but was unable to go because he had been labeled as a missing person in the United States. Later they return to Los Angeles, during which time Morton discusses the idea of Evans quitting the firm to work for Morton with his new (unnamed) organization, which will practice environmental activism as a business, free from potential conflicts of interest. He hopes Evans and Sarah will take his place in the new organization after his death.

Metaphorical Use of Characters

Several critics have suggested that Crichton uses the major characters as proxies for differing viewpoints on the topic of global warming in order to allow the reader to clearly follow the various positions portrayed in the book.

• Joseph Romm suggests that Kenner is a stand-in for Crichton himself
• David Roberts suggests that Evans is the stand-in for the reader (who Crichton presumes accepts most of the tenets of Global Warming without any detailed study of it, but not unquestioningly) and also that Ted and Ann are stand-ins for people who accept the "environmentalist" party line without question
• Ronald Bailey suggests that Drake is a stand-in for the environmental movement "professional" activist
• Bruce Barcott suggests that Sarah , and Michael B. McElroy and Daniel P. Schrag suggest that Jennifer are stand-ins for the academic community (intelligent enough to follow the debate but undecided until the evidence is presented) with Sarah being the portion of the community likely to believe in Global Warming on less than undeniable evidence (they will accept "Likely, but not proven" as sufficient proof) and Jennifer representing the part of the community that accepts undeniable evidence only
• Michael B. McElroy and Daniel P. Schrag also suggest that Jennifer is simultaneously a stand-in for conflicts of interest created by how the research is funded (i.e. her "official" story changes based on who is paying the bills but in private she makes her true feelings known)
• Gregory Mone suggests that Sanjong is a stand-in for the local university library/reputable Internet source verification, etc.

Author's afterword/Appendixes

Crichton included a statement of his views on global climate change as an afterword. In the "Author's message", Crichton states that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable. He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment.

In Appendix I, Crichton warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science. Here he provides two examples of the disastrous combination of pseudo-science and politics: the early 20th-century ideas of eugenics (which he directly cites as one of the theories that allowed for the Holocaust) and Lysenkoism.

This appendix is followed by a bibliography of 172 books and journal articles that Crichton presents "...to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions." (State of Fear, pp, 583).

Criticism

Scientific

This novel received criticism from some climate scientists, science journalists and environmental groups for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research. One of those in disagreement was MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, who expressed the minority viewpoint by saying "the science was handled intelligently and responsibly."

Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper, wrote in the New York Times stating that

"... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear”

Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, wrote in Nature in 2005:

"Michael Crichton’s latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is likely to mislead the unwary. . . Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton’s use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority."

The American Geophysical Union, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries, states in their newspaper Eos in 2006:

"We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility."

The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to what they describe as misconceptions readers may take away from the book. Jeffrey Masters, Chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC." James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote: He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about.

Literary criticism and book reviews

The novel has received mixed reviews from professional literary reviewers. Most critics made the following points as to the reason for their reviews: The storyline is weak compared to previous Crichton's works; the use of heavy footnoting and presentation of numerous graphs do not serve plot development and only exist to support Crichton's central thesis.

The Wall Street Journal's Ronald Bailey gave a favorable review stating:

In "State of Fear" ... Michael Crichton delivers a lightning-paced technopolitical thriller that turns on a controversial notion: All that talk we've been hearing about global warming—you know, polar ice caps melting, weather systems sent into calamitous confusion, beach weather lingering well into January—might be at best misguided, at worst dead wrong. Think "The Da Vinci Code" with real facts, violent storms and a different kind of faith altogether. ..."State of Fear" is, in a sense, the novelization of a speech that Mr. Crichton delivered in September 2003 at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. He argued there that environmentalism is essentially a religion, a belief-system based on faith, not fact. To make this point, the novel weaves real scientific data and all too real political machinations into the twists and turns of its gripping story.

— The Wall Street Journal

On Entertainment Weekly, Gregory Kirschling gave a favorable A^- review and said:

It's a first for Crichton, whose thrillers, from Jurassic Park to Timeline to Prey, have always alternated ginormous action scenes with user-friendly rap sessions that outline the facts on DNA, quantum teleportation," or nanobots. Finally, he's written a book in which the science turns pages faster than the derring-do does. That's because, with Fear, Crichton's found his best button-pushing subject yet: global warming...

Crichton doesn't buy it, and he's out to discredit the whole theory. For real! No wonder the novel's been cloaked in such secrecy right up till publication. "The threat of global warming," as one character puts it, "is essentially nonexistent"... This stuff's way better than nanobots or time travel. But his plot, for once, is a distraction...

Part of the fun is that, for the first 400 pages or so, Crichton wants you to think of him as a right-wing nut. Don't be fooled. He's not just deflating global-warming environmentalists. When he finally gets around to explaining what he means by "state of fear," it's in another character-sputtered rant on "the way modern society works — by the constant creation of fear" by politicians, lawyers, and the media. Michael Moore, who made the same point in Bowling for Columbine, could've written the passage. State of Fear is one of Crichton's best because it's as hard to pigeonhole as greenhouse gas but certainly heats up the room.

— Entertainment Weekly

In The New Republic, Sacha Zimmerman gave a mixed review and said:

Michael Crichton has long been well-known for taking controversial theories or technologies and surrounding them with the fast and sexy trappings of a thriller. His novels have been years ahead of their time... But his latest effort is almost uncanny in its timeliness. State of Fear, Crichton's examination of global warming and environmental extremism, is very much a reflection of current global fascination.

...Crichton uses Evans' resolute belief in global warming as a means of instructing the reader in the facts of climatology -- or, at least the facts as Crichton sees them. Under the guise of a deposition, Evans is deluged with information and diagrams intended to alter his thinking. It would be a perfectly effective instructional device were it not for the fact that Crichton seems to think the reader is as daft as Evans. In depicting Evans' slow acceptance that global warming is a fiction, Crichton almost seems to be saying to the reader, "If an oaf like Evans can get it, then you would certainly be an idiot not to." Nevermind the fact that no author should force readers to examine dozens of similar charts with predictable outcomes or a fictional deposition that reads like a seminar in condescension. (Then there's the small matter of whether Crichton's instruction on global warming has any merit to begin with -- his views on the subject are controversial, to say the least.)

But despite these problems, Crichton does deliver a globe-trotting thriller that pits man against nature in brutal spectacles while serving up just the right amount of international conspiracy and taking digs at fair-weather environmentalists.

— The New Republic

In the Sydney Morning Herald, John Birmingham gave an unfavorable review and said:

State of Fear is ostensibly about a James Bond-like conspiracy by green nutters to alert the world to the threat of environmental disaster by manufacturing a couple of environmental disasters. When Crichton sticks to this script he produces a number of agreeable set-piece action sequences which keep the pages turning and will doubtless form the basis of a $100-million Hollywood adaptation.

What you probably won't see on the big screen are the many long, self-indulgent passages where Crichton hammers home the real point of his novel. As one of his characters puts it, "The threat of global warming is essentially non-existent. Even if it were a real phenomenon it would probably result in a net benefit to most of the world."

A sizeable chunk of the book is given over to quoting research to prove this point. It's the sort of thing you can expect to see turning up on Media Watch in the near future as right-wing talkback hosts quote slabs of Crichton, with or without attribution, in the never-ending quest to make the world safe for Exxon and BP.

If this doesn't bother you - and most techno-thrillers do come with a heavy philosophical bias towards the right - you'll probably enjoy State of Fear. However, it is by no means Crichton's best work.

...State of Fear falls down in its credibility. Not so much in the environmental science, which is merely boring after the first lecture, but mostly in the plotting... It's bad writing and it lets the reader ignore the larger point Crichton is trying to make.

— Sydney Morning Herald

In The Guardian, Peter Guttridge gave an unfavorable review and said:

Underlying the novel is what he regards as 'the postmodern view of science' - that science is not a quest for knowledge and/or truth but another power struggle in which competing scientists are more likely to be influenced by self-interest and prejudice than by any objective evaluation of evidence.

He argues the point robustly both within the novel and an appendix... What has caused controversy is that he has chosen global warming to demonstrate this point of view. Crichton's argument is that there is no incontrovertible proof that global warming, in the way we envisage it in relation to carbon-monoxide [sic] emissions, actually exists.

He tries to be even-handed, but the plot thrust of the novel clearly aligns him with those people, such as President Bush, who are sceptical about global warming and prefer inaction to action on the issue.

... Crichton's thrillers sometimes have shortcomings such as cardboard characterisation and clunky writing but he is usually excellent at passing on all the research he has done in an interesting way. Here, however, his didacticism gets the better of him... In State of Fear's 600-plus pages, there is a great deal of discussion about global warming. Technical information is sometimes conveyed through graphs and charts. This, in the end, gets in the way of the thriller elements. This is a thriller that reads more like a polemic.

State of Fear does wrestle with what is happening in the world around us and Crichton provides ample food for thought. Check out that bibliography - it's a fascinating reading list - but the fact that my interest was held more by the bibliography than the plot of the novel means that this is a thriller that definitely fails to thrill.

— The Guardian

In The New York Times, Bruce Barcott gave an unfavorable review and said:

There's a problem with Michael Crichton's new thriller, and it shows up before the narrative even begins. In a disclaimer that follows the copyright page, Crichton writes: "This is a work of fiction... However, references to real people, institutions and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real."

Footnotes?

Yes, there will be footnotes. Although "State of Fear" comes dressed as an airport-bookstore thriller, Crichton's readers will discover halfway through their flight that the novel more closely resembles one of those Ann Coulter "Liberals Are Stupid" jobs. Liberals, environmentalists and many other straw men endure a stern thrashing in "State of Fear," but Crichton's primary target is the theory of global warming, which he believes is a scientific delusion. In his zeal to expose the emperor's nudity the author cites, ad nauseam, actual studies that seem to contradict the conventional wisdom on global warming. Hence, footnotes.

...The annoying citations make it apparent that the author desperately wants to be taken seriously on the global warming stuff. That would be perfectly fine in a Weekly Standard cover story. In a thriller, it's a little like having the author interrupt the story to insist that Dr. Evil actually has a death ray. Crichton's proof is itself laughably rigged. Kenner cites study after study but Drake, the scheming NERF leader, is allowed no evidence. "Just trust me, it's happening," Drake says of global warming. "Count on it." There are, of course, thousands of scientific studies that raise disturbing questions about climate change and the human role in its cause. To claim that it's a hoax is every novelist's right. To criticize the assumptions and research gaps in global warming theory is any scientist's prerogative. Citing real studies to support the idea of a hoax is ludicrous.

— The New York Times

In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Allan Walton gave a favorable, but slightly sardonic review and said:

"It's to Crichton's credit, of course, that he earns adjectives like "spellbinding" and "engaging." His books, as meticulously researched as they are, have an amusement park feel. It's as if the author channels one of his own creations, "Jurassic Park's" John Hammond, and spares no expense when it comes to adventure, suspense and, ultimately, satisfaction."

— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Controversies

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Despite it being a work of fiction, the book has found use by global warming skeptics. For example, United States Senator Jim Inhofe, who once pronounced global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people", made State of Fear “required reading” for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which he chaired from 2003-2007.

In September 2005, Inhofe called Crichton to testify before this committee. During Crichton's testimony Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded him for views that "muddy the issues around sound science" and Senator Barbara Boxer said "I think we have to focus on facts, not fiction". In part for his reliance on Crichton's novel as a scientific source, Chris Mooney of The American Prospect called Inhofe "the U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science."

American Association of Petroleum Geologists 2006 Journalism Award

The novel received the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) 2006 Journalism Award. AAPG Communications director Larry Nation told the New York Times, "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth". The presentation of this award has been criticized as a promotion of the politics of the oil industry and for blurring the lines between fiction and journalism. After some controversy within the organization, AAPG has since renamed the award the "Geosciences in the Media" Award..

Daniel P. Schrag, Director of the Center for the Environment at Harvard University , called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part. As for the book, he added "I think it is unfortunate when somebody who has the audience that Crichton has shows such profound ignorance".

Al Gore

Al Gore said on March 21, 2007 before a US House committee: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor [...] if your doctor tells you you need to intervene here, you don't say 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem'". Several commentators interpreted this as a reference to State of Fear.

External links

• Slate review of book
• Official site from Michael Crichton
• Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear – Pew Center on Global Climate Change