I challenge environmentalists to disprove Crichton's facts that he has laid out in this book.
Speaking of codes... the letters of "Nick Drake" can be rearranged to spell "Kick Nader".
Remember, Crichton's book is a novel, not a scientific paper. That said, it can still be very helpful in helping to open eyes (minds).
There are difficulties with discussing global warming. First, there's the problem of dettermining whether the Earth's biosphere is, in fact, getting warmer.
Local temperature measurements mean very little. It doesn't even mean much to measure heat changes in the entire atmosphere. A small change in deep ocean temeratures can offset much larger changes in the atmosphere and shallow waters together.
Even if we take the temperature (simultaneously) of every significant section of the biosphere, we must do this repeatedly over many years, before we can make definite statements about a global warming trend.
However, there is a LOT of, inconclusive, evidence that we are really in the midst of a warming cycle, caused by the introduction of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
That gets us to the next problem. There is a mindset that regards any major change as an unmitigated disaster. In fact, a major change is just that, a change.
First, one needs a little perspective. The Earth's average temperature has fluctuated by perhaps 15 degrees, since it has been covered with life. It currently seems to be a bit cooler than average. The planet is not largely covered with glaciers (as in an ice age), but does have a lot more ice than has been the norm for the last few billion years.
If the Earth got a few degrees warmer, it would get a lot warmer in the arctic regions, and only a little bit warmer in the tropics. An analogy can help in understanding this.
Imagine a house with a moderate amount of insulation, a certain amount of heat input, and a certain (cooler) outside temperature. The house will reach an average temperature that is higher than the outdoors. There will be areas within the house that are several degrees warmer than others.
If insulation is added, the house will get somewhat warmer, but the most pronounced temperature changes will occur in those areas most affected by the cold. The temperature will become more even (and more comfortable).
Increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is analogous to adding insulation in a house. It will reduce temperature variation over the Earth's surface. The tropics will get very slightly warmer, while the poles will get much warmer.
There are many other changes one can predict will be caused by this. Some more obvious than others. Obviously a lot of ice will melt, and sea levels will get higher.
Well, that would be a disaster, wouldn't it? The continents would get smaller, and coastal erosion would increase. Yes, but a lot of area previously covered with ice would become open land, and erosion has been going on all over the Earth since before it contained life, and nothing done by Man will change that.
At the same time the warmer atmosphere will have a greater capacity for carrying water vapor. This should have the effect of shrinking deserts. Storms, which are largely driven by temperature differences in the atmosphere, will become less common and less severe.
What about extinctions, won't many species disappear? Yes, but again, this has been going on for as long as there has been life on Earth. Species come and species go. During periods of major change, this can increase.
All in all there will be much more life on a warmer Earth than is now present.
I could go on and on, but it should be obvious that global warming would not be the disaster it is often claimed to be.
I bought Crichton's book on Amazon. Got it a couple of days ago. Was reading a non-fiction book about networks, decided to have a bit of a break so I cracked State of Fear open last night. Just turned the last page about an hour ago. A real cracker of a read! I highly recommend it to anyone who has not read it.
It has often been the case that fiction is the best place to explore a real issue. George Orwell used fiction effectively in this manner with Animal Farm and 1984. Ayn Rand also used fiction as a way to present her ideology with The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Jesus Christ used parables to get a point across.
Personally, I think Crichton's book will have a sublte but important influence in a way that Lomborg's 'Skeptical Environmentalist' was not able to achieve although Crichton uses him as an important source in State of Fear. I read Skeptical Environmentalist as well and am glad I did so but I got the impression that many people had opinions and used the book as a talking point without actually having read it, sort of like many lefties go on and on about Chomsky without actually having read him.
At the end of the day, it's just more fun to read a good fiction story than a non-fiction and/or technical piece. Lomborg's book was really, really important and very needed but Crichton, I believe, was able to bring much of Lomborg's essential message to a much larger audience.
It will be interesting to see if anyone in Hollywood has the guts to make a film out of State of Fear.