Talk:State of Fear/Archive 1

Untitled section

Rather than saying the "hero" is John Kenner, shouldn't it say that the "protagonist" is Peter Evans? The novel follows Evans around for the vast majority it, while Kenner only has a few scenes through his viewpoint.

Indeed for a number of reasons (1. Evans is followed around a lot, and 2. he is the most multidemnsional character) Evans should be recognized as the protagonist.

mosquitos point

I think this point should be left out, since it is not actually factually applicable. It is simply sufficient to say that the factual content of the book is disputed, to suggest contradictions is to turn an encyclopedia article into flamebait.

I can't see why you removed it. Its relevant, its true, its an error in the book. All the GW stuff is gumpf too, but thats been done to death elsewhere. William M. Connolley 18:12:23, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

Relevant and true, yes, but it doesn’t add anything to anyone's understanding of the book. Overall, it makes the article appear biased, as the only actual cited item from the book is an error. Objectively, that information adds very little to the article, and may take a bit away from its credibility. For these reasons i'm going to suggest deleting it again. If I dont get any responses to this post, I will remove it once more. RFC.Miros 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing, the actual truth of that is also debated. While DDT is not technically banned for malaria spraying, the negative political influence of the ban, evident by the fighting in the UN about it, pressures many countries to simply not use it against malaria, or use it as much as they should. As a result, some countires have much higher malaria rates when compared to their neighbors who do spray, clearly indicating that much of the bogus science that contributed to the banning of DDT in the first place continues to have negative effects. So, as long as the actual accuracy of the "truth" part of this is in there, i dont think it should be represented as absolute fact. (Disclaimer: I have not read this book, i did not know anything about the malaria ddt ban until i googled it out of curisotiy because of your post and this article.) Miros 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

But the people who are actually fighting malaria have no problems with the ban. They appear more than happy with the current state of international treaties regarding DDT.

"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the statu­s quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time­, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control onl­y, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before." [1]

which makes perfect sense given the fact that the major stumbling block in use of DDT is currently residual resistance from the previous overuse for agriculture, mainly cotton growing:

"Corr­elating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission,­ it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide add­ed to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria." (C­hapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural production an­d malaria resurgence in Central America and India", Nature, Vol. 293, ­1981, page 183).

There is tons of evidence out there about DDT's lack of effectiveness in various countries due to resistance (Sri Lanka after the tsunami being a particularly hot one right now), and DDT cases actually rising in various countries spraying DDT until they switched to other insecticides; you just have to sift through the much better publicized "killer environmentalist" screeds. It should mean something that the former articles are written entirely by people who are actively fighting malaria, and are not particularly propounding any pro or anti DDT POV, while the latter articles are entirely written by people who have never expressed any interest in the the third world's suffering from malaria in any other context, and always end with "and so environmentalists can be seen to be mass murderers".

In any event, arguing that there are pressures to avoid DDT which may possibly lead to underutilization and possibly some missed opportunities to fight mosquitos is a far cry from a flat statement that

"Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler."

For one thing, note that there have not been two million people a year dying from malaria since the "ban", total. There are 2.7 million people per year dying now, thirty years later; this represents a huge increase in the past few years which is why the issue is even raised. Even if every single human who had died of malaria since 1972 could have been saved by use of DDT, it wouldn't come near 50 million. As DDT fans Junkscience.com admit in (literally) small print,

***** Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban. -- Ed

Knowingly making a hugely overly large quantitative statement of the death rate from a DDT ban which does not exactly exist, justified by the moral certitude that even one death is too many (presumably, a sentiment that those filthy killer environmentalists with their moral inferiority do not share)? You can see why it's not POV to say that therefore Crichton's flat statement that "the DDT ban killed 50 million" is objectively false, and his corollary that therefore "environmntalists are worse mass murderers than Hitler" is equally false; which makes its inflammatory nature all the more repulsive, to say nothing of the insult it makes to those who lost their families to the Third Reich.

Nevertheless, I just put this in the talk page for completeness, should inquiring minds read this far; the article itself is not the place for all this debate, and it (obviously) will be flamebait and lead to a revert war, as you say; it certainly has on the DDT] page. Maybe somebody with more talent can figure out how to work it in briefly here without bringing on the wrath of the armchair malaria fighters. (Note added afterwards: this is not pointed at you). Gzuckier 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Miros wrote:

Relevant and true, yes, but it doesn’t add anything to anyone's understanding of the book.

Err well yes it does. Part of the claim of the book is some factual accuracy and connection to reality. That it contains falsehoods is therefore both relevant *and* adding understanding.

Miros continued...

For these reasons i'm going to suggest deleting it again. If I dont get any responses to this post, I will remove it once more. RFC.Miros 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that next time you wait more than 1 hour for responses, please? And don't mark controversial deletions as minor. William M. Connolley 15:19:49, 2005-07-28 (UTC).

Yeah, to sum up my 99 theses above, to say that "the DDT ban killed 50 million" when there is no DDT "ban" and the total number of deaths, DDT related or not, is far fewer than 50 million, constitutes enough of a whopper to deserve a mention in an article about a book with "two appendices and a twenty page bibliography, lending an air of scientific credibility". Gzuckier 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This point should be left out because it is factually inaccurate. To quote the book word for word:

Page 488 4th paragraph from the top:

"DDT was never banned." "You're right. Countries were just told that if they used it, they wouldn't get foreign aid." Kenner shook his head. "But the unarguable point, based on UN statistics, is that before the DDT ban, malaria had become almost a minor illness." Fifty thousand deaths a year worldwide. A few years later, it was once again a global scourge. Fifty million people have died since the ban Ted. [...]--Mac Davis 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This version too is wrong. Read http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/ William M. Connolley 08:26:51, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

1. Even USAID (which is under attack for spending 70% of its budget on consultants) funds DDT. WHO funds DDT. World Bank funds DDT. I doubt they're the only organizations who do so.
2. If there were 50,000 deaths a year when the "ban" was set in 1972, and there are 2.7 million deaths a year now, then the total number of malaria deaths over that period can't be 50 million. This would make it highly unlikely that 50 million deaths could therefore be ascribed to the DDT 'ban', even if you assigned every single malaria death to lack of DDT.
3. The resurgence of malaria contemporaneously with the cessation of DDT use hardly proves that the lack of spraying is the cause of the resurgence; more realistically, the elimination of malaria as a huge public health problem led to a reduction of anti-malaria activity in general, including spraying, which has not yet been sufficiently corrected to meet the resurgence.

The article by Roberts et al. regarding DDT use and malaria in South America (1) correctly observes that health policy makers have shifted the emphasis of malaria control programs from vector control to case detection and treatment and that malaria control has been woefully underfunded in recent years. However, their conclusions that increased malaria is due to decreased spraying of homes with DDT and that DDT is still needed for malaria control do not withstand close scrutiny. The authors did not mention several factors influencing malaria increase in recent decades, including growing antimalarial-drug resistance, the deterioration of public health systems responsible for malaria control, and large-scale migration to areas at high risk for malaria.[2]

Any malaria control initiative must learn lessons from the failed eradication programme of the 1950s and 1960s. One of those lessons is that any chemotherapeutic, prophylactic, or insecticide based tool has a finite duration of efficacy: chloroquine and dicophane (DDT) rapidly induced resistance in Plasmodium spp and Anopheles spp respectively. These organisms reproduce rapidly and as vector/parasite systems have an unrivalled capacity to change, have coevolved an efficient host-parasite relationship, and are hugely diverse below the species level. Anopheles adapts rapidly to ecological, environmental, and climate change; such change is often local and operationally relevant to malaria control. The development of drug and insecticide resistance and ecological and demographic change will outstrip the capacity of any health system to respond even if human resources were available to implement changes in policy on the basis of good evidence.[3] Gzuckier 16:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote the book directly again, page 487 11th paragraph down:

"'Arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitoes, and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere near as good or as safe. Since the ban two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it.' 'But DDT was a carcinogen.' 'No it wasn't . And everybody knew it at the time of the ban.' 'It was unsafe' 'Actually, it was so safe you could eat it. People did just that for two years, in one experiment. After the ban, it was replaced by parathion, which is really unsafe. More than a hundred farm workers died in the months after the DDT ban because they were unaccustomed to handling really toxic pesticides."

Footnotes also add that some estimates put the number of deaths at 30 million deaths.

http://junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm Here is another estimate, with references. It puts the estimate at almost 90 million deaths from malaria since DDT was banned. -Mac Davis 02:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The website also notes at the end, in the fine print, that "Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban." It's hardly an objective viewpoint. I'm not saying good or bad one way or another, but I wouldn't call this a decent reference. jcomp489

Its not. But my point still is, that the book DOESN'T say DDT was banned, it CLEARLY says it was not. --Mac Davis 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You quoted from the book, above: Arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitoes, and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere near as good or as safe. Since the ban... I've bolded the relevant bit. can you spot it? William M. Connolley 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

But I also quoted this: "DDT was never banned." "You're right. Countries were just told that if they used it, they wouldn't get foreign aid." Here I have bolded the relevant part, where the book specifically says that DDT was never banned. This quote is right after your quote. I think you just like to try and perceive the book as providing false information. --Mac Davis 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is typical excuse making. By your own quotes, MC repeatedly states that there was a ban, and once explains that no, in fact, there wasn't a ban. Which is pretty sloppy stuff by any standards. And the foreign-aid stuff is probably junk too. MC's defenders seem to waver between "its all fiction, so who cares anyway" and "there is some kind of fact in there somewhere and we'll excuse all the mistakes". William M. Connolley 12:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Typical excuse making? it CLEARLY says that there was NO DDT "ban," just a very strong incentive to not use it. '"DDT was never banned." --Mac Davis 01:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your own quote above says: Since the ban two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it.' 'But DDT was a carcinogen.' 'No it wasn't . And everybody knew it at the time of the ban.' 'It was unsafe' 'Actually, it was so safe you could eat it. People did just that for two years, in one experiment. After the ban, it was replaced by parathion, which is really unsafe. More than a hundred farm workers died in the months after the DDT ban because they were unaccustomed to handling really toxic pesticides."

I've bolded the times when MC explicitly states that DDT was banned. How much more do you need? William M. Connolley 12:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

MC does explicitly state that DDT was banned, but after your quoted passage, he explains apparently unclearly, how he uses "ban" as a perhaps over-exaggerating word to describe the situation. The DDT article also points this out:

Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler. (page 487)

While this point [of the banning DDT], as Crichton raises it, is little more than hyperbole, one of the seemingly salient pro-DDT arguments...

Perhaps I and the editors of the DDT article are interpreting the book incorrectly, it is each reader who must decide for himself what the book says. Sorry sir, but I think I am finished arguing with a blind man. --Mac Davis 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you've already accepted that there is no DDT ban, quoting the DDT page quoting SoF to show otherwise is a bit of a waste of time. I can't understand your blindness: SoF, as you yourself quote, says multiple times that there was a DDT ban. Given that, you can't complain about people pointing out that this is wrong. One correction doesn't remove the multiple mistaken references. But if you are indeed finished arguing, I'm sure we'll all be glad. William M. Connolley 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

Considering that it is pointed out quite clearly in the novel that DDT was not directly banned don't you think that the sentence "Crichton's estimate of fifty million deaths from malaria as a direct result of the ban on use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes is wrong, since there is no official ban on use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes" is simply innacurate. The fact that it is refered to in breif as a 'ban' notwithstanding. If he had written 'economically sanctioned out of use' instead of 'banned' the dozen or so times it was mentioned in the book it would be a lousy read. I think any intellegent reader would assume after the author went out of his way in the first mention of the case to say that it was'nt actually a ban that the use of the word 'ban' later on was an abbreviation. I think you are grasping at straws here to find innaccuracies in the text. You can I suppose argue the 50mil figure but it seems to be a common mistake. The New Yorker proffered the same figure in last October in a totally unrelated artical about Bill Gate's charity works. I think Chriton was being generous in not pointing out that for instance in Sri Lanka the death rate went from 17 to 500,000.

The fact that 'economically sanctioned out of use' might have been a lousy read doesn't invalid the criticisms for a book that has won an award for journalism. If you want, you can try to cite the paragraph in full, and let readers make up their own mind. Schrodinger82 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we define and define early on in a work that the term 'shake' is a miniscule period of time not to be confused with the act of physically rattling an object about. Then any intellegent reader can assume that if later in the same work we refer to a shake we are speaking stoill of a unit in time. Seeing as the author went out of his way early on to point out that there is no ban then claiming that the book inacccxurately claims there was a ban is disingenuos at best.

He states that the ban on DDT killed 50 million people. Verbatim. This would tend to lead readers to think that he is stating that the ban on DDT killed 50 million people, which is false. Shake or no shake. Gzuckier 15:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No one who has read the book would ever take the implication that there was a formal ban on DDT. He uses the word 'ban' in the last few pages of the book in response to a minor character when there is a good deal of more pressing business to attend to. He goes out of his way earlier in the book to clearly state that there was no ban. You likely have not read the book at all. As you are taking ONE SENTENCE completely out of context. Additionally I am confused by your link in the artical claiming that 50million is innacurate. According to the linked cite there have been 91million deaths. Since it is under 'criticism' I doubt anyone has criticise Chriton or underestimating the death toll but you are free to do so..... -Query

It looks like the site the changed since the original citation, since it now claims that over 13.5 billion "cases of malaria have caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world." In other to get to 50,000,000 by these numbers, everyone in the world would have to be infected once. Just out of curiousity, where did Crichton get his numbers? 71.197.208.203 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know where he got his figures. Tonight when I am at home I'll try to dig it up and check the bibliography. I just clicked the link when I was re-reading the artical. I deleted again. I don't know if I am in danger of violating the 3rr rule (new here) but once again the re-re-re-rewrite was factually innacurate. It had claimed thet 'later' he had 'defended himself' by pointing out there was no ban. When actually the first mention of DDT in the novel is where he clearly states that there was no ban. IMHO he never felt the need to 'defend' against a charge that he did not intend to make. I think once again that there are people editing this artical who have not read the book that is the subject matter. Please do debate innacuracies or disagreements in statements and claims made in the book. Just don't invent claims that were not made. And read it first is not a bad yarn....

Actually, what it said was "In defense of the first charge, Crichton makes the following clarification later in the novel." Big difference. Furthermore, the entire quote was provided in its entirety, allowing people to make up their own mind on whether or not it was a valid interpretation. The clear statements that said that there wasn't a ban is contradicted by the clear statements saying that there was. There was also a verifiable source presented that DDT continued to be use for malaria even after the ban. -Schrodinger82 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is also incorrect. The statement that there was not a ban was earlier in the book not later. Does anyone else find it odd that someone who has not read the book (yes schroedinger I do mean you) feels that they are qualifies to edit a reveiw of it. -Query

It's given here without any other source [4] Gzuckier 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the same figure is in October's edition of the New Yorker (unrelated artical about Bill & Melinda Gates charity works). I just don't know where it origionally cpomes from. Not MC as plenty of other folks use it. Ironioc in that a primary theme of his novel is that 'common knowledge' is usually wrong.

cite

Any criticisms of the book from outside sources would not be contentious here. We would be acting appropriately to mention newspapers or books that criticize the book, and by talking about notable sources we don't need to squabble about the truth, since we have the notability for the claim in the first place. 66.41.66.213 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you referring to? Schrodinger82 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

DDT ban

Section on criticism argues in favor of Environmentalist POV that efforts to enforce a DDT ban didn't cause any malaria deaths.

• Argument asserts that DDT wasn't exactly "banned" (hinting that only outlawing it would constitute a ban)
• Argument asserts that less than 2 million people died per year to due efforts to ban DDT

Section should be recast to Name the Source of this argument. Something like:

• Environmentalist author Shell G. Ames says that Crichton is wrong about DDT and malaria.
  1. It wasn't "banned"
  2. Not that many people died
• Anti-environmentalist author Ted Shouter says that Crichton is right about DDT and malaria.
  1. While not actually outlawed, the threat to withhold economic aid had the effect of a ban.
  2. Shouter cites mortality statistics (from the following think tanks, pressure groups and UN agencies) detailing preventable malaria deaths of 1 million (2 million? 3 million?) per year

Or give "Ames" the last word; the order doesn't matter. The point is the well-referenced POV's should be in the article - not arguments by contributors. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

THe book itself says that DDT wasn't banned. Did you read the article? William M. Connolley 18:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as Mr. Connolley says; in fact there was quite the little skirmish here a month or two back about whether it was fair to criticize the book for discussing the DDT ban, therefore the second quote was inserted. Secondly, there is a perfectly fine external link to a perfectly fine page explaining in some detail that there isn't a ban, with its own references. Gzuckier 15:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you two evading the point, or simply missing it? Opponents of the DDT ban are using the term "ban" in a loose sense. Did you read what I wrote above, or just jerk your knee? --Uncle Ed 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

why is there no toc on this page?

why is there no toc on this page? Gzuckier 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

so when I added this section, it appeared. When I deleted it, the toc went away again. now i added it back, and the toc came back. i give up. Gzuckier 15:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As default wiki adds a TOC once there are a minimum number of sections, and I think that number is four - but I might be wrong. you can force a TOC with "__TOC__". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

Why is this book showing up in the pseudoscience section? People may disagree with his conclusions, but were his sources and methods spurious enough to warrant being beside tin-foil hats and pyrimid power? I disagree. Mr. Bildo 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not psuedoscience as it is a work of fiction. I thought it was well sourced but being self-described as fiction precludes it's psuedoscience tag. --Tbeatty 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its psuedoscience because it is non-science dressed up as science. He uses sources to prop up his conclusions, and ignores the far greater evidence against them. Its exactly analogous to pyramid power William M. Connolley 10:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He claims it's fiction. Pyramid Power does not claim fiction. How is fiction dressed up as science? Secondly, there are legitimate scientists who question Global Warming conclusions and that is not psuedoscience. Simply disagreeing with scientific interpretation does not make it psuedoscience. By that definition, string theory is psuedoscience. --Tbeatty 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience because it gets a journalism award from the AAPG "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth"Gzuckier 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He uses the disclaimer of fiction to duck any criticisms. But its pretty clear he intends it to be taken seriously (indeed, you appear to be doing so), and many unwise persons have done so. Its not psuedoscience because it disagrees with the consensus: I didn't say that, why are you inventing strawmen? Its psuedoscience because it misuses some science to prop up his pre-decided conclusions, whilst deliberately ignoring the far greater science that says the opposite William M. Connolley 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"State of Fear" contains a fictional story which is clearly exempt from any "science" category. In the appendix of the book, the author clearly states the preceding was a work of fiction. He does, however, offer some non-fiction information that there is no attempt to "dress up". I may disagree with his conclusions, but I didn't see anything disingenuous enough to compare it with "copper healing" and "yoga flight". In contrast, I don't see Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" listed as pseudoscience, despite being heavily criticized by several respected scientists. The reality is that neither should be considered pseudoscience based on the definition of the category and tagging either as such is obvious bias. The pseudo- category tag is dangerously subjective to begin with, but "State of Fear" is not tin-foil hats. Mr. Bildo 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In a speech Michael Crichton in a gave at Caltech in 2003, he stated that, "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[5] If you can disprove that statement, you should be able to get yourself elected God - and change the laws of physics to suit your beliefs. Kalaong (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this really relevant?

red Barnes, in Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush, states that George W. Bush "avidly read Michael Crichton's 2004 novel State of Fear, whose villain falsifies scientific studies to justify draconian steps to curb global warming....Early in 2005, political adviser Karl Rove arranged for Crichton to meet with Bush at the White House. They talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement. The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more."

I mean. Should I go over to the artical on vegitarianism and qoute the various sourses that claim Hitler as an advocate of a vegitarian diet? It's posted in the 'critiscism' section of the artical so I think we can assume that the unpopularity of Bush is meant to be a guilt-by-assosciation attack on the novel.

Query 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Waited a few days and now I deleted it. If anyone can explain this as anything other than a strange ad hominim I appologize.Query 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2006 Peruvian Documentary

"State of Fear" is also a 2006 documentary about the rise and fall of the Shining Path insurgency in Peru and the heavy handed military repression, particularly under Alberto Fujimori, associated with its defeat. [[6]]Tom Cod 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelCrighton StateOfFear.jpg

Image:MichaelCrighton StateOfFear.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical sources

I've moved these from the Michael Crichton external links section; excess criticism isn't appropriate for a neutral biography. I thought they might be useful in sourcing this article though.

• Review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear – Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters, Chief Meteorologist at The Weather Underground
• Michael Crichton and Global Warming – David B. Sandalow, Environment Scholar for the Brookings Institute
• Science Fiction: Michael Crichton takes a novel approach to global-warming alarmism. – Iain Murray, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Rebuttal on Crichton's Speech
• Earth Institute News, Columbia.edu Criticism of the science of State of Fear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimme danger (talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be immediately marked as biased

This article is completely and clearly biased toward the opinion that global warming exists. I think it is against the spirit of wikipedia to spend a quarter of an article denouncing the views of the book.

I believe a separate page should be created dealing with the 'factuality' of the book or a warning should be put on the page concerning its neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.25.42 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article has stepped past the boundaries of neutral reporting and become an author-bashing page. Even if the author's arguments prove in 100 years to be incorrect, maintaining neutral editorial treatment requires that the page does not become overloaded with counterarguments, nor biased and inflammatory language used to describe the author's points. Curious Violet (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is that global warming does exist. Read the article on The Great Global Warming Swindle. These are all verifiable statements by prominent scientists. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is that Global Warming exists and it is mostly caused by humans. The consensus could be wrong or correct in terms of the theory's capabilities of explaining the observed phenomena, but to wikipedia, that is irrelevant. What matters to us is that scientists have reached a consensus on what is causing the temperature anomalies. I have looked through the article and most of it seems to be confined to talk about the book. That is fine. There is a section on scientific criticism which is needed because this book is special.

This book was heavily discussed in congress by Inhofe and it was used (despite the fact that it is fiction) to make arguments on the political debate on climate change mitigation action. Since the book took such a prominent and unusual (few fiction book are used as evidence in congress hearings about the environment or economic issues) role in this congressional debate and the book was highly criticized by the scientific community we need to include this in the article. Not including it would be blatant POV. Even the author himself has, to the best of my knowledge, agreed that there are factual inaccuracies in the book. Thus, the criticism section is not included to "bash" the author, it is included because the book is prominent and took unique roles in congressional debates that no fiction book should have taken (this is not the author's fault, it is the politicians' fault.) Jurassic Park, written by the same author, also has scientific inaccuracies but these are not as important because that work of fiction was not used in a congressional debate to promote the cloning of dinosaurs. Brusegadi (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that there exists scientific consensus as to the human effect on climate change (or that the climate is even changing in any meaningful way) is *COMPLETELY* incorrect in an 2007 anonymous survey of 200 climate scientists conducted by a "anonymous souorce" (the respondants *DID NOT* know who was conducting the survey until it was published) when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being in complete disagreement and 10 being in complete agreement) the level of agreement with the following statements: a) "is there significant climate change or the near term likely hood of such, such that various ecosystems [including human ones] will be changed enough to require an increase in the rate of evolutionary drift within the current species pool and/or will the species pool change size?" the avr. score was 4.5 and b) "does human activity have a significant and measurable effect on any climate change that may or may not be occurring?" the avr. score was 3.25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.89.184 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is beside the point here. The article is being politicized beyond reason. The editors are no longer treating the book as a literary work, and are missing the point that the controversial argument is a literary device, a device which has been around since at least Plato - that is, take a set of facts and exaggerate only those needed to amplify the reader's suspension of disbelief. Consider the case of Benchley's novel Jaws - a story about an impossibly large shark. The fact that such large sharks once existed millions of years ago, along with some sightings of very large Great Whites are combined to create doubt in the reader's mind. In an article on that book (no such article exists on Wikipedia) it would suffice to include a comment that "Marine biologists for the most part agree that no Great White shark is capable of growing to the size of the individual in the book." That is all - a simple statement perhaps with a link or two is more than enough. So why does Crichton's book require paragraph after paragraph of counter-arguments right here in the article? Because some editors want to use the article to counter the arguments in the book. These editors are practicing a type of global warming activism in the guise of "literary criticism". I applaud their environmental mind set but that is inappropriate here. If the politicization is worth its own topic on Wikipedia, by all means let's create one. But let us have the book stand on its own as a piece of literature. Even if all of Crichton's "facts" are shot down, one cannot shoot down one of his points - that is, that even if global warming is happening, and even if CO2 levels are rising, and even if humans caused the CO2 levels to rise -- there is still enough uncertainty to what extent the CO2 levels are causing the observed rise in temperature for a fine author to create an environmental thriller, which is exactly what he has done. Curious Violet (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably carry the category "The Neutrality of this Article is Disputed". The key point of NPOV is: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Please see Neutral point of view. I have not submitted a RFC yet. However, I will put up the "nominated as" flag. The flag is in my opinion justified by at least 3 opinions here, and the imbalance in POV in the article. Let's talk more about it. Curious Violet (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is strongly biased towards Crichtons wacko views. It should be more mainstream William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the book was used by a congressman in a congressional meeting about global warming, you cant just compare the criticism section here to that of another book. Like I said, Jurassic Park had problems with the science too, but its no big deal. Here, it is a big deal because the book was used as evidence, and as such, was strongly criticized by the scientific community. Brusegadi (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has already become one in which one editor summons another to join in the comments. That's an escalating situation. That being the case we can't pretend that a disagreement does not exist. Brusegadi reversed the "nominated as" flag without discussion and without resolution so I ask that someone else support my point. I'm saddened when rational skepticism is quashed like this. I think it might deserve a RFC. Curious Violet (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You added the tag without discussion. If discussion is simply saying something, then I discussed too. Look, RfCs are not meant to be used for threats, and I feel that that is what you are doing. If you want an RfC for something so obvious go on and waste peoples' time. The point is that this book is unique in that despite being fiction it was taken way too seriously by a member of congress. Brusegadi (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment about the RFC was never meant to be a threat, but just as possibly the right thing to do next. I found it helped to read the article through beginning to end. Doing that led me to think that the problem is perhaps more of presentation than one of content. I agree that it is significant that the novel was used some as a political tool. However the subtopic "Literary significance and scientific criticism" doesn't work as a single subtopic. I would be satisfied if (1) the scientific criticism content were divorced from the "Literary significance" section, and (2) work in the content of how the author successfully exploits rational doubt to create his work - a cogent addition because one can then see the irony in the novel, in which the author could even be accused of creating the same kind of scenario, but reversed, that his novel's character attributes to the governmental institutions.Curious Violet (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I perceived threat, glad all is fine. I think its fine to do what you want to do as long as the scientific section clearly reflects the opinions of scientists regarding this book. That is, it should say that scientists think the book is wacko. If the book has any literary significance as of now, I dont see a problem with it as long as the literary critics are discussing literature and not science (science goes in the science section) and as long as it is all sourced with reliable sources.

I agree with the notable Dr. Connolley. The article should be more like The Great Global Warming Swindle. Does this page count as a reference so I can put in "British Antarctic Survey climate modeller says Crichton's understanding of climate is "wacko!" Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Swindle was made primarily as a documentary for info on climate change, not fiction (although it is fiction...), while the novel was made as a novel, so I dont think they are on the same plane. On the other hand, if Curious Violet goes on and splits the literary and science section into two, it might become easier to make the scientific section more to the point and a better survey of scientific opinion on the book than we have now. Brusegadi (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fiction with footnotes? footnotes with cherry picked data. or scientific works cited as meaning things their authors say is wrong. While we cannot know Chrichton's motives, the final result is obvious. The book is effectively a piece of propaganda which confuses many people about scientific fact. The only bit in the literary and science section that was "literary" originally was the AAPG award, now in its own section. The section could simply be change to Scientific Criticism. I think there also be should be a section "Scientific Misconceptions" in which they are listed and explained. Like what was deleted here [7] The Pew Center has a similar thing on their website. There should be more in the lead about how misleading the book turned out to be (intentional or not). Perhaps misunderstood would be a better word. It is allowed to ask in an expert, and Brusegadi knows the subject. I didn't want to bother WMC, [user:Raymong arritt], or [user:Stephen Hudson], all are qualified climate scientists. If the presence of Bursegadi is a problem for you , we could ask him to step aside and bring in the PhD's. Also, I must complement you on your learning curve, Curious violet, 3 dozen edits and you can now wiki-lawyer with the best of em. I must be dense. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it confused and keeps confusing people. Furthermore, it received so much criticism from scientists that per wp:weight we have to have a corresponding section that honestly reflects scientific opinion on the matter. Brusegadi (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the presentation of all the ranting and raving of the scientists perfectly supports the points made in the novel. While this is cool, it isn't in the scope of Wikipedia. Instead of removing anything, there should be more citations on views from the other side of the debate.-FUNKAMATIC (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But its not the scientist who are ranting, its a bunch of pundits. So the work of fictions is not supported by reality. Brusegadi (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

State of Fear is a 2004 novel by Michael Crichton published by HarperCollins on December 7, 2004. Like most of his novels it is a techno-thriller, this time concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. Unlike other novels, the book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a twenty page bibliography, all combining to give a false impression of scientific authority. However, this use of scientific data is inaccurate and misleading, according to prominent climate scientists.

Crichton, who spent 3 years studying the theme, included a statement of his own inaccurate views on global climate change at the end of the book. He states his erroneous belief that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable. Crichton warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science. He provides an example of the disastrous combination of pseudo-science and good intentions, in the early 20th-century idea of eugenics. He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment.

The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and reached the #1 bestseller position at amazon.com and #2 at the New York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005.

Anything something erroneous is stated, it must pointed as such. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

These changes are well referenced in the scientific criticism section. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV again, at least clean the leading section

The leading section of this article is a clear violation of NPOV and biased toward one position of the issue debated in the novel. For those users not very familiar with rules of the game, let me summarize some of them relevant for my claim: Wikipedia’s NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth". Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail, and the qualifications and nuances that follow. The tone should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate (not showing, and not affected by emotion, bias, or prejudice). The advice about factual articles also applies to articles on fiction subjects. Further considerations apply when writing about fictional topics because they are inherently not real. Avoid weasel words that offer an opinion without really backing it up, and which are really used to express a non-neutral point of view. Usually, weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...". There are different variations on weasel wording, with the general principle of introducing some proposition without attributing it to any concrete source. "Most scientists believe that..." fails to provide any evidence that this is indeed the case, or to clarify just where between 50% and 100% "most" is, for that matter. The case is similar with things that are apparently true "according to some studies" or "contrary to popular opinion". "It has been proven that" allusion to proof does not constitute proof, "Science says" that science is an abstract concept which in actuality is not capable of speech, As the Wiki guidelines state:

‘For example, an article on Charles Darwin should not begin with: Darwin created controversy with the publication of Origin of Species... ‘

Since this is not the first time this issue has been raised without success, let me try another angle, by listing some controversial but neutrally written leading sections of actual Wiki articles where none of them is passing judgment upfront in the leading section:

The Da Vinci Code controversy is limited to the “Literary and historical criticism” section.

Dawkings’ book The God Delusion. Only in the final statement is said “It has attracted widespread commentary, with several books written in response”, and then, controversy goes to the section “Critical reception”. There might be consensus among theology experts that Dawkings know nothing about the subject, but that is not excuse to include this idea in the opening statement.

Martin Scorcese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (film) has a section entitled “The controversial content” and another “Critical reception and interpretation”, but nothing in the opening of the article.

In the Abortion article only the following phrase is included in the leading section: ”The moral and legal aspects of abortion are subject to intense social debate in many parts of the world”. And then, you go to the section “Abortion debate” for the details of the controversy

The Same-sex marriage article has an absolutely clean opening, and a very comprehensive “Controversy” section, with plenty of arguments, just like the Global warming controversy article.

Even the opening of the The Great Global Warming Swindle is written within NPOV principles despite the fact that this documentary is a frontal attack on global warming. But again, criticism is limited to the section “Reception, criticism and changes made due to criticisms”

And to be very specific, the offending texts within the leading section of the article clearly violating NPOV are:

1. “all combining to give a false impression of scientific authority”

2. “However, this use of scientific data is inaccurate and misleading, according to prominent climate scientists”

3. included a statement of his inaccurate views on global climate change

4. He states his erroneous belief that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is…

The last two noun qualifyiers are completely out of place for a Wiki article. My suggestion: the other two ideas, together with their references belong to the “Scientific criticism” section. One neutral sentence regarding the controversy about the scientific data should suffice, such us the one in the Abortion or on Dawkins’ book articles, without value judgments of any kind, and just keep the leading section as it was before December 5. Since there have been at least one Wiki administrator involved in the discussion of this the edit war, please, enforced Wiki policies, it’s your duty.Mariordo (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure: Just in case, I did read the novel when it was just published in 2004, and read it again just a few months ago, after reading plenty of literature about the several issues and points of view regarding the global warming controversy.Mariordo (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mariordo asked for my opinion. The question in this case is to what extent the science is a key element of the book. if the book is seen as a book written or read as a view about global warning in the guise of fiction, then the statement that it does not represent the scientific consensus belongs in the lede paragraph rather prominently, as it does in all pseudoscience. Even so, I think the article presently overdoes it a little. The omission of the adjectives suggested above seems like a good first step, so I've gone and done it, removing some duplicate references. I am not sure all the references at the lede paragraph are necessary there, since they are also mentioned later. the most authoritative one should be enough. I think the criticism section also needs an opinion from some academic source that the science is accurate, if such a statement can be found. I think it would be fair to add an opinion that the consensus of global warming is much firmer today than when the book was published. I think the book was against the consensus even then, but not as much as it is now, and some chronological perspective would help. DGG (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that what you did is sufficient. We have to remember that, as you said, the book is unique in that it entered the realm of real world policy decisions (Inhofe). Brusegadi (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoting DGG - "if the book is seen as a book written or read as a view about global warning in the guise of fiction, then the statement that it does not represent the scientific consensus belongs in the lede paragraph rather prominently," in September 2005, called Crichton to testify before this 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 200committee. Obviously this book is not even seen as fiction. That is what is extraordinary about it. I'd have no problem with a quote from an academic or scientific source, that Crighton's views are correct, but note that most of the quotes are from very high ranking scientists (department heads at NASA, Harvard, Oxford, or scientists who have done the very studies that Crichton cites. And actually that supporting item is there, in the form of the AAPG award. (For those unfamiliar with the AAPG, the leadership faced threats of members leaving because of the AAPG's anti-global warming position, which was eventually softened.) It will not be possible to find a quote from a scientist who himself

has not been strongly criticized for taking an anti-concensus position.

The Great Global Warming Swindle first sentence "controversial documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus" Last 2 sentences of the lead "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[5][6][7][8]" Please note the use of multiple references.

The fact is this book has confused and continues to confuse people about science. Whether that is intentional, unintentional, or because the book is dated, that fact remains. It is the single most notable fact about this book.

Wikipedia has at least 3 editors who are experts in the field of climate. William M. Connolley, Stephen Arritt, and Stephen Hudson. Connolley's opinion is above. He felt the previous version was "strongly biased towards Crichtons wacko views." Hudson appears not to be active. Shall we get Dr. Arritt's view? DGG (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagredo (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt is his name. I agree with Sagredo, it is hard to compare this book to anything because no fiction book has been used the way this book was used, as fact. DGG (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusegadi (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the controversy should certainly be mentioned to a reasonable extent. . No, the negative adjectives in the lede are totally inappropriate. I'm reverted back to my NPOV version, as an editor, not an admin. I could easily have justified making more changes to achieve balance, but I made the minimum necessary to achieve even a rough semblance of objectivity. I advise very strongly against trying to reinsert them. Quite apart from POV pushing, It's overkill. Given the discussion in the rest of the article, there is no need to say it there. Any neutral reader will understand quite adequately. As a rhetorical strategy even, it's a very bad idea, because it makes it clear to a reader that the article is grossly unbalanced, and would incline a critical reader to disregard the whole argument for that position as prejudice. Adjectives in that position are the sort of thing Conservopedia would do -- though undoubtedly not in this particular case :) --and the sort of thing that makes it clear to any neutral reader that an encyclopedia is untrustworthy. DGG (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What about, "Unlike his other novels, the book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a twenty page bibliography, all combining to give an actual or fictional impression of scientific authority.[1][2][3]

actual or fictional simple is simply confusing, and that the book gives an impression of scientific authority is plainly in the references. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When I read the novel in 2004 I thought this feature of the book was very handy, because allow me (and I did) check my myself the sources, as anyone can do. Does anybody found a reference that is false? I did not (the ones I checked -papers and websites). Gore's AIT has references too, and again, this feature allows the reader to check the facts by himself (though Gore did not use an standard format, which makes harder to do follow-up). The polemical "Cool it" does too. In any scientific debate it is an obligation to provide the sources, as all of them did. To keep the article with a NPOV shouldn't we avoid as much as possible any adjectives, any value judgments? That the interpretation of data and scientific research was controversial, that's a different matter. I think the better documented case is Peter Dolan's Antarctica temperature trends, already in the scientific criticsm section of the article. Mariordo (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the book purports to be about science, then it needs to be pointed out that his science is wrong / cherry-pciked / misleading. The current intro does that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A quote from the Pew Center's website

the novel contains a number of strawman arguments, misinterpretations of the scientific literature, and even a few misleading statements drawn from the so-called “skeptics.”

Crichton’s cherry-picking of sites to show cooling is a common, yet irrelevant tactic.

Here again, Crichton is attacking a strawman - at the time that State of Fear was published, no scientists had claimed that global warming was affecting hurricanes.

the description of Hansen’s testimony within Crichton’s book is not the real version, but a distorted version presented by the well-known skeptic Patrick Michaels ten years later Crichton’s misrepresentation of history here suggests that either he was rather cavalier in his research or he simply preferred Michaels’ fictional version of events.

The one-sidedness of his novel and personal comments have actually contributed to further politicization of climate change science, enhancing a phenomenon that Crichton himself argues is ultimately dangerous.

Pew Center on Global Climate change http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

It is appropriate and in keeping with the NPOV standard to add Michael Chrichton own words about his motivation for writing this ironic statical work. Chrichton's motivation in writing was out of concern for "an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy." His effort to stir controversy and thoughtful consideration through the use of satire has clearly succeeded.

I recently edited the article in two places that were reverted, this is why changed the article those two times:

• In the opening paragraph it says: "combining to give an actual or fictional impression of scientific authority." I think this phrase needs to be rewritten. "Actual or fictional" constitutes an empty set of words. I do not believe it is clear to the reader.
• I changed the section titled "Scientific Criticism" to "Criticism" because "Scientific" is a modifier, differentiating from general criticism. If we had a section for literary criticism, and scientific criticism that would be ok. Mac Davis (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will try to see if I can do a satisfactory job at rewriting the first phrase that you point out. Concerning the 'Scientific criticism', I think since the section is composed entirely around scientific criticism (there is no literary criticism) then it is fine to leave it as such. The addition of a literary section sounds good thought. Is anyone familiar with sources where we can find such things? Brusegadi (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have some sources, but all end up discussing about the science/global wariming, there is even a recently published book evaluating the science in all Crichton novels, and it does have a chapter on State of Fear writing by a scientist. I think it will be difficult to have a separate section just for the literary criticism. Later on I will give it a try. Also, as it was pointed out above, the "Criticism" lacks NPOV, all critics are on the same side. Other than the well-known skeptical groups, I have a couple of more "neutral" criticisms, and, I believe the defense MC made for himself is worth to include, and good for keeping the NPOV of the article. I will try to edit a short paragraph later, now I am working in other articles. Mariordo (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

His defense should be included, but we have to watch out the skeptical are actual scientists as opposed to most of them who are...

added NPOV

This article is CLEARLY biased against Crichton and in favor of global warming. This article should at least summarize the points Crichton is making and cite his sources instead of going directly into "criticism." And NONE of the "criticism" in the article is substantial. All it says is "Crichton is misleading... Crichton is wrong... Crichton doesn't know what he's talking about." So why not create a list of Crichton's points and then a list of rebuttals, instead of these ad hominmen attacks 70.106.128.242 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is not a forum or debate class. The criticism is cited from reliable sources. Interested in the fine details? Read those sources too. Brusegadi (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell are quotes like "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about." included? If you're going to quote the article quote something substantial. Wikipedia's gay 68.238.2.28 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that reality is also "CLEARLY biased against Crichton and in favor of global warming"; so, after considerable deliberation, the liberal cabal who control wikipedia has decided to go with reality on this one, because of our irrational hatred of George Bush and our wish to destroy America.

And, quoting the man who's been consistently correct about climate change for the longest time, not to mention having been malevolently misquoted in the book itself to make it seem as though he were a fraud, would seem apropos. if you find that homosexually arousing, that's probably your particular problem, as it doesn't seem to be general. Gzuckier (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The user does have a point, not about wikipedia's sexual orientation, but about the quote from Hansen. There really should be a section giving an overall view of the scientific communities response to the book, not a selected view of rather useless comments from only negative critics. MeanerWiththeScenery (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i haven't any objection to any positive reviews of the science from scientific sources; but i honestly haven't seen any. the association of petroleum geologists doesn't qualify as an unbiased scientific source. anyway, like i said, i wouldn't object. however, if it is true, as it seems to be, that the scientific community is pretty much thumbs down on the book while explicitly or implicitly biased organizations like the association of petroleum geologists hold it up as truthy, that's an important fact. Gzuckier (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There should indeed be a summary of Crichton's "points," (otherwise known as misconceptions) along with scientific rebuttal as can be found at the Pew Center and [the Union of Concerned Scientists] websites.

While Hansen's comments may not be diplomatic, he is eminently qualified to judge who understands climate science and who does not. Gzukier is right, no objections would be made to a comment by an equally qualified prominent scientist supporting Crichton. Go find one. -Global Warming Cabal Member No. 1,208,640 aka Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow me here. Many elements of the book were critical of IPCC and Hansen. Specifically he pointed out that Hansen's margin of error was around 300%. Which it was. Which is all publicly available information. So it is the NPOV thing to do to include as many of these people as possible in the criticism of the novel. Perhaps, I mean to keep it NPOV, we should drudge up every neocon editorial on on the Clinton presidency and and write a new criticism section based on that. While we are at it we could perhaps find some satanists to help NPOV the artical on Christianity. Because that would be ballanced. Actually the only mention I found in the whole thing of anyone who liked the book (outside of the author's millions of fans) was followed by the comments of two people who hated it (and like several of the editors here obviously did not read it... 24.166.12.149 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Hansen did not have a 300% error margin. In this particular case, Crichton blindly thought that Michaels presentation was factually correct. Unfortunately it wasn't. (hint: Hansen presented 3 scenario's, Michaels cherry picked one (the one deemed "least likely" by Hansen - and certainly not the one chosen by policymakers), and compares it to the temp record). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a little peeking around at other wikis. Again there seems a lot of focus here on criticism. An unusual amount. There is basically no critiques on the wiki for 'an inconvenient truth' And basically none on any other Chriton novel. I think that most of the criticism represented here has little to do with the novel and a lot to do with people who want to support their own POV on global Warming. Which is one (over publicised) issue the novel addresses... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.12.149 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the criticisms?

So far we have a big chuck of text that basically says Crichton misused my study, but what facts exactly did he misuse or misrepresent. That exact points that people thought are erroneously described are more important that a person just saying "Crichton is misleading people." Remember (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of Crichton's "points," (otherwise known as misconceptions) along with scientific rebuttal as can be found at the Pew Center and [the Union of Concerned Scientists] websites. Since they were also requesed by MeanerthantheScenery above, I'll add those from the Union of Concerned Scientists. But that is should be the begining. Though the book may be the "Bible" of global warming denialists, it is almost universally condemed by the scientific comunity. The Pew Center criticisms and some from the Slate review of the book should also be added. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

State of Fear is a work of fiction. Why is there "Scientific Criticism" included in the Wikipedia page on this book? Do even fictional stories which are critical of global warming have to be rebutted? I deleted that section of the page, because I felt it was irrelevant to the page of a FICTIONAL NOVEL. (Alex2706 (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Look at the archives for the discussion surrounding this matter. The novel was used by a member of congress to make a point against taking legislative action to curb emissions. So, scientists heavily criticized it and not adding the criticism we would be violating neutrality. Brusegadi (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Crichton claims the footnotes and charts are "real," (real science?) and not fiction. He and a great many of his readers do not understand that they are cherry picked, misleading and sometimes simply wrong. Or just maybe he did understand what he was doing when writing the book, as many scientists seem to believe. Which would explain why they're so pissed off. And that, frankly, is the point that needs to be made. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 21:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Crichton's references at the end of his novel Eaters of the Dead contains an entry for the Necronomicon. Using diagrams, charts, footnotes, bibliographies is a Crichton trademark. This novel is a work of fiction and should be treated as such. If a congressman used a work of fiction in the Congress to make a point, well he's a pretty bad congressman, isn't he? And when Myles Allen says "use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority," he's wrong; it's a literary practice known as false document.Jmj713 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the great irony in trying to keep articles non-biased. Maybe, soon, Wikipedia might tussle over the latest science-fiction book? 98.210.15.39 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the overwhelming "rebuttals" to footnotes?

I feel that the "Criticisms" section is a bit much, so to say, and some editor's biases are spilling over. And as the title says... 98.210.15.39 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before some environmentalist gets angry at me, I'd like to point out that our fellow editors obviously have their biases spilling over, reverting edits and the like and trying so hard to call out on Crichton. Mr. Raptor (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The book was cr*p (from a sci pov) but the we-hate-it quotes are a bit excessive I'd say. I've removed some. Still a lot left though. I don't think they should all go into footnotes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We should keep biases out of any sort of article. I agree we should leave the criticism from other scientists (and before anyone else pigeonholes Crichton, his other books are much better from a scientific viewpoint), but the quotes are a bit much. Mr. Raptor (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Critighton is *TOO GENEROUS* to the "radical" enviromentalists

The following is the transcript of an email I sent to the Heartland Foundation http://www.heartland.org/ that has an essay giving clear references and layman's references to justify every single point Crichton makes in the book (Some of the more mild non-climate change issues I think he is wrong on for example we understand acid rain sufficiently well to manage it and prevent its worst effects same for water pollution [the EPA just recently declared the Hudson [including the portion running along Manhattan] to be safe for swimming and with simple purification [iodine] safe for human consumption] so for "trivial" systems such as these we *DO* have the science to make sound policy). Following the transcript I will include a few comments I failed to include in the original email:

Subject: essay on state of fear is to kind to the radical enviromentalists From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:25 AM To: jbast@heartland.org I am a computer scientist who specializes in the limits of computational models (i.e. the limits of what is modelable on a computer and what computers can and can not do) [generally refereed to "the Theory of Computation"] and both your essay and Crichton are too kind the underlying math and computational nature of computer climate modeling (CCM). Specifically *EVEN IF* we had completely accurate raw data to put into the models *AND* we *COMPLETELY* understood the system being modeled (i.e.the climate [which even the IPCC admits is the mathematically most complex system we have ever attempted to model]) it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to get output over any sufficiently large surface area of the planet (say California at the largest end) or over any sufficiently long time frame (say 10 years at the out side) that would be more then 20-50% (with 100% accuracy being the model completely agrees with real life) accurate. In summary the reason this is it is impossible for a computer model to have a "present" it only has a "past" or "future" that (theoretically) is "infinity" [1] close to the "present", *BUT* since different portions of the current "generation" of the model are either in the past or the future it is not possible to produce aggregate results that are in the "present". Additionally even if the theory of computation allowed for the above issues to be resolved it is well known that any complex dynamic mathematical system is extremely sensitive to it's initial inputs and computers can not represent infinitely precise numbers (for example a computer can *ONLY ESTIMATE* pi to an arbitrary [i.e. some large but finite] number of digits). Thus since we can only estimate the true values of the raw data (assuming our measurements are completely correct) when entering them into a computer model and the inherent input sensitivity of CCM's the output would be completely untrustworthy (likely worse then then 350% error Crichton cites). Since it is late and I need my sleep if you need more details or creditable references I will put them together tomorrow or Friday.

Footnotes:

1. Infinity as used to calculate derivatives and integrals in calculus (i.e. some very small but measurable number)

-- Aryeh M. Friedman (aryeh.friedman@gmail.com), FloSoft Systems Java Developer Tools and Operating System Development

      "Free Software != Free Beer"

--- end of orginal email ---

The math behind the limitations of the modeling has been proven from at least the late 60's with most of the work being done in the 40's and 60's but some of the earliest results are from the early 30's.

The math behind input sensitivity has been proven since at least the mid 70's with some of the proof going as far back as the late 50's.

Both topics are extremely well understood and are covered in undergrad classes in both math and computer science by almost all universities.

Bottom line is the above statements are not "theoretical" in the sense that they have not been factually proven to the satisfaction of every professional in math and computer science (i.e. they are as solidly proven as say the Pythagorean Theorem or the value of PI).... they are only theortical in the sense that they rely on "abstractions" (areas of knowledge that it is impossible to physically "touch", thus we *MUST* rely on indirect meausers and mathimatical proofs/disproofs to understand]).

For this reason and the extremely well documented citations crighton gives the page *MUST* in all fairness be updated to *CORRECTLY* state Crighton's thesis which is we *DO NOT* have sufficent science on climate change to base policy on... and that getting that science is the single most complex and time consuming project the scientific community has ever undertaken (it *IS* the 21st centuries apollo/Manhattan/etc. "project")... I personally believe that we quite likely have some measurable effect on the climate due to human activity *BUT* since our track record for attempting to manage systems that are beyond our understanding is so horrible we *MUST NOT* base policy on any of the current science (namely policy that essentially ignores the problem *AND/OR* policy meant to curb what ever effects we may have on the system(s) in question) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.89.184 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Locations

Any thoughts on the 'locations' section? Seems completely irrelevant to me. Really, what is the point in this long list of locations? Can we shorten it or remove it altogether? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting article rewrite

Since the article is clearly highly biased and does not seperate the fictional parts from science cited by the characters (which is by everyones admission is "real" and not fictional [i.e. comes from actual scientific publications.... the only disagreement is how fairly Crighton selects what "facts" to report and which ones to "overlook" as well his debatable combining of findings from multiple sources in the same dialog). I have started a page rewrite project at State of Fear Revisions. The goals of the rewrite are to:

1. Correctly state Crighton thesis in his own terms (without passing judgement)

2. Give a accurate plot summary and character list (basically done but the plot summery mischaraterises the reason for Even's "conversion" from being one based on beiong torn between sarah and (I forget her name) instead of being based on the "evidence" presented by Kenner and first hand experience with NERF's action plan)

3. Break the critism/science debate off into a seperate page and make it more objective

4. Leave purely literary critism (like weak story telling compared to his other efforts) on the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• A 100% support for your proposal. People who doesn't seem to have read the book added their POV. See my comments above regarding NPOV (though it has improved a bit lately). Definitively is required to have a description without passing judgment to achieve NPOV. --Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I only have the book (currently... lent the paper copy to someone) from a bit torrent of the audio version which is missing cd 5 if anyone has it let me know (I do have a electronic copy of the text including all the graphs and both appendixs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think copyrights would not allow to have an electronic copy, but you can consult the text by bits using the "Search inside" tool in Amazon, which is available for the paperback version. Just type the right key words and you will be able to read page by page, at least this will help you to fill the blanks. I am working on other projects, but I do have a copy and have read it twice, so and I can give you a hand from time to time.-Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I am currently reading it for the 4th time (twice for fun, once for a paper essay on it [which I verified every source in the bibliography], and once to this rewrite).... I have also listened/read/viewed every publically abvaible speech/testimony Crighton has given so I think I know the general concepts he is aiming at well but certain details like where to prove the editting of the 2001 IPCC report might need some help from you. Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OOPS forgot to mention if you drop me a email note at aryeh.friedman@gmail.com I will send you some intresting reading/info that has some interesting stuff about SoF that are not directly related to this article thus I wish not to post them here Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As per some stupid editorial policy which I am current disputing I was forced to move the rewrite page to my personal user space ... the link above has been updated.... since I am rather new to wikipedia editing can some please attempt to edit it and tell me if it is editable by others Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it works, I did some editing as requested. Because you are new to Wiki, I suggest you first do some reading of Wiki policies regarding content, style and WP:NPOV. --Mariordo (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally this sounds good, but I wouldn't create a separate article for the scientific criticism as this often leads to WP:POVFORK. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if you look at the two skeleton pages you will see why I think making them one is unwieldly and confusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does n't look very promising so far. You've completely dropped the sci crit. You also seem to have completely misunderstood the state of the "sci" in the book: it isn't validly presented: its a mixture of invention, distortion and selective quotation. I doubt your re-write will fly William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You must of wrote that as I was creating the skeleton of the separate article for sci crit State of Fear Science Debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)