Nevertheless, despite the personal weaknesses of individual scientists, the scientific method works. The point is, scientists are human and so are therefore prone to the same faults as the rest of us. I have also met environmental scientists who are hot-headed and wear their personal views on their sleeves, although they are minority. If Crichton set out to write about climate, why did he need to invoke the Straw Man fallacy and falsely attack the character of scientists and environmentalists by maliciously mischaracterizing them through fiction? I remember working with scientists as a journalist, and what I saw was: hyper-intelligent critical thinkers who were also warm, friendly, fair, and who loved their planet. The problem with using science fiction to attack climate science is that it allowed the author the cheap opportunity to attack climate scientists through the classic logical fallacy of ad hominem (attacking the character) without having to cite the weaknesses in character of actual climate scientists. From personal experience, I know that the personality traits of this group of people is very different than the pencil-necked eco-terrorists which Crichton fictionalized to pad his arguments. I was able to get to know many of them well. Each of these archetypes are common straw men in right-wing circles in the United States.ДЇrom the year 2005 to 2015, or one-quarter of my life, I worked with a diverse group of environmentalists, environmental lawyers and marine scientists.

The bulk of State of Fear is about characters who are archetypes of different forms of environmentalists, scientists and conservationists.

Is this really somebody who we should trust on a subject of real science? Michael CrichtonвЂ™s Depiction of Academics and Environmentalists is Misleading The book Travels sets us up for what Michael Crichton is: somebody who looks down on real science, and who is tantalized by its alternatives. I think it is possible to invert that idea, and to say that the wonders of real consciousness far surpass what conventional science admits can exist.вЂќ вЂњSkeptical scientists often point out, as Carl Sagan has, that the wonders of real science far surpass the supposed wonders of fringe science. I remember one section in which he attacked Carl Sagan as a proponent of real science. Tellingly, in this book, he shows his disdain for science. The book is about his interest in mysticism, out-of-body experiences, astral projection, and fortune-telling.

Michael Crichton вЂ™s 1988 non-fiction book, Travels, shows his interest in pseudoscience. Let me talk about a few of those: Michael Crichton Peddled Pseudoscience in the Past When I read State of Fear in 2004, there were several things I disliked about the book many of those were themes that were common among AmericaвЂ™s anti-environmentalists at that time. But, is a work of science fiction as credible as, say, NASA, or science journals, scientific academies? No doubt, we should always learn about anything from multiple sources challenging any one piece of information before us. Was that really the right way to learn about climate science? Throughout my adult life, I have deliberately taught myself to think and communicate in the language of science, and to be able to sniff out non-scientific claims.Дrawing Climate Change Conclusions from a ThrillerД«y the time Crichton died in 2008, he had become the worldвЂ™s most famous climate change denier - it all started with the publication of State of Fear.ДЇor anybody who draws their conclusions about climate change from a science fiction thriller, try this.В Step back for a minute and think about that. I believe that science is the best tool we have to explain the natural world, and is superior to itвЂ™s alternatives: pseudoscience (ideas which claim to be scientific, but are incompatible with the scientific method), antiscience (rejection of the scientific method as the best approach to knowledge) and politically-motivated fake news. I laughed the book off, but ten years later, I am surprised to find that many I meet with actually use it as their primary source of information for their disbelief in climate change science. State of Fear was anything but the fun-loving adventure story, and, as a voracious reader of climate science, I easily and quickly saw through the book as an error-ridden, and awfully written political diatribe on environmental science. I hadnвЂ™t read the author since I was a teenager, and I needed a light read reminiscent of The Great Train Robbery and Sphere. Ten years ago, when Michael CrichtonвЂ™s new book, State of Fear was published, I was among the first in line to read the new hardcover edition.

Michael crichton sphere review