Literary reviews
The novel has received mixed reviews from professional literary reviewers.[16]
The Wall Street Journal's Ronald Bailey gave a favorable review, calling it "a lightning-paced technopolitical thriller" and the "novelization of a speech that Mr. Crichton delivered in September 2003 at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club."[10] Entertainment Weekly's Gregory Kirschling gave a favorable A− review and said it was "one of Crichton's best because it's as hard to pigeonhole as greenhouse gas but certainly heats up the room."[17]
In The New Republic, Sacha Zimmerman gave a mixed review. Zimmerman criticized Crichton's presentation of data as condescending to the reader but concluded that the book was a "globe-trotting thriller that pits man against nature in brutal spectacles while serving up just the right amount of international conspiracy and taking digs at fair-weather environmentalists.".[18] In March 2006, Michael Crowley, a senior editor of The New Republic, wrote a strongly critical review focusing on Crichton's stance on global warming.[19] In the same year, Crichton published the novel Next, which contains a minor character named "Mick Crowley", who is a Yale graduate and a Washington, D.C.-based political columnist. The character was portrayed as a child molester with a small penis.[20] The character does not appear elsewhere in the book.[20] The real Crowley, also a Yale graduate, alleged that by including a similarly named character Crichton had libeled him.[20]
Much criticism was given to Crichton's presentation of global warming data and the book's portrayal of the global warming debate as a whole. In the Sydney Morning Herald, John Birmingham criticized the book's usage of real world research and said it was "boring after the first lecture, but mostly in the plotting... It's bad writing and it lets the reader ignore the larger point Crichton is trying to make."[21] In The Guardian, Peter Guttridge wrote that the charts and research in the book got "in the way of the thriller elements" and stated the bibliography was more interesting than the plot.[22] In The New York Times, Bruce Barcott criticized the novel's portrayal of the global warming debate heavily, stating that it only presented one side of the argument.[23]
In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Allan Walton gave a mostly favorable review and offered some praise for Crichton's work. Walton wrote that Crichton's books, "as meticulously researched as they are, have an amusement park feel. It's as if the author channels one of his own creations, "Jurassic Park's" John Hammond, and spares no expense when it comes to adventure, suspense and, ultimately, satisfaction."[24]
Criticism from scientific community
This novel received criticism from climate scientists,[25][26][27] science journalists[28][29] and environmental groups[30][31] for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 US climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research.[26]
Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper,[32] wrote in the New York Times: "our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear".[27]
Myles Allen wrote:[25]
Michael Crichton's latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is, ... likely to mislead the unwary.... Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton's use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority.
The American Geophysical Union states in their newspaper Eos "We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility."[33]
James E. Hansen wrote that Crichton "doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about."[4] Jeffrey Masters, chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC."[34]
The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to what they describe as misconceptions readers may take away from the book.[31]
