I read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear last week. The story starts regarding George Morton, a millionaire philanthropist who supports the National Environmental Resource Fund and other such organizations … then a series of strange events happen with a racy pace. It even includes a trip to Antarctica.
At the end of it, you learn that global warming is a myth. Seriously. Crichton has done lot of research and points to so many real scientific papers, out of which many indicate that nobody really knows whether the current earth’s warming trend is natural or man-made, despite what many environmental organizations or industry organizations want you to believe.
It is best summed up in Appendix 1 “Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous”:
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful – and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing – that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory, that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed.
I give the book a 10/10 rating. Don’t miss it.