Indian Readers discussion

Just finished reading State of Fear.

Well, the book has a lot of potential to discuss the views expressed about global warming.

What do you guys think? MC explained everything with the real (selective) graphs and studies to support the claims by the characters. But it is really hard to believe the views expressed about the global warming.

In the end, in the topic 'Why politicized science is dangerous?' he says there are a lot more similarity between global warming and eugenics.

I see that many of you have already read the book. What do you guys think about the views expressed in the book?

Note: For the sake of those who haven't read the book let's use spoiler tag when spoilers are mentioned.

Hmm.... i was seeing this book always whenever i visit bookstores, or on pavements in the second hand market, but never even stopped to take a look at the synopsis on the back. Looks an interesting premise. Will try and get hold of an e-copy immediately.

Aditya wrote: "Hmm.... i was seeing this book always whenever i visit bookstores, or on pavements in the second hand market, but never even stopped to take a look at the synopsis on the back. Looks an interesting..."

Sure Adi.. The book gives a totally different perspective of the environmental issuee mainly global warming.. Also, there is a good thriller story as well.. :)

I have read it a couple of years ago. Will have to go through my review (if I have written one) as I dont remember what it was about. I had also read Micro around the same time and I have a hazy image of some microparticles attacking people, which I think is from Micro rather than State of fear

Smitha wrote: "I have read it a couple of years ago. Will have to go through my review (if I have written one) as I dont remember what it was about. I had also read Micro around the same time and I have a hazy im..."

It is about Global warming and environmentalists.. ring a bell? :)

nein. Will have to skim through my copy

He did a great amount of research on this, but with a mind of a critic of community which calls for action against global warming. And hence it looks like propaganda at several points, particularly by making a green terrorist group who goes around breaking ice shelves and tectonic plates to put thier point. I think that was targetting groups like Greenpeace etc.

One thing I felt valid was his view on humans and nature. He argues that humans can neither distroy nor save this planet. That is true. Humans would get wiped out long before ice age, and humans are worried about that more than nature, that is the reason for such a hype on Global warming.

I have felt that, though a man of science, he has always been critical about how science continue to be misused. If you see all his works,

Anderomeda strain - Had been critical about NASAs missions to study outer space microbes.

Jurassic Park, Lost world - Critical about lot of thing, mainly buying science.

Terminal man - About disturbing human system using science.

State of fear - politicalisation of science.

I think he is always been wary of how science has fascinated humans that they think science is the answer to their fantasies.

The research he did for the book was amazing. Almost for all the things Kenner speaks, he quoted a reference.

Also, I think MC was completely aware that he would be termed as Industry man. Many characters call Kenner a spy for the industries. He also answered all the questions he expected to receive through the conversations between Kenner and Evans also between Ted and Kenner.

Yeah, even I agree with him that men cannot destroy or save the earth. But I guess we can avoid spoiling it.


Politicization of science is always dangerous. Couple of examples given by him in the appendix were the perfect ones.

The conversation about something called PLM with a professor. A very interesting thoughts on keeping the people in a state of fear to make them disciplined.

maybe its Prey. I really cant remember. Just a sec, will do a search and see.

Yes, its Prey

He never missed to criticize all the major scientific discovery of his time :) not in a sense that would shackle science but more in terms of ignorance of the people handling it.

Also, in this book he criticizes almost all the environmental issues raised..

In a chapter, he says the forests have come much after Men came.. Coz., there was no chance of big forests during ice-age..

BTW, to the science experts, I've read somewhere that the physicists predicted that end of the world will be by freezing, is it true?

If that is the case, I think the views expressed by MC in this book are valid, aren't they?

The views expressed in the book I think are true. Nature has its own balance to maintain. It won't worry about a specific species.

Micro was started by MC. But he unfortunately couldn't finish it. So it became his last book. Then Richard preston Was selected to finish this incomplete project

Mehaboobmunna wrote: "The views expressed in the book I think are true. Nature has its own balance to maintain. It won't worry about a specific species."

I am not sure whether we can say all those scientists who argue for Global warming are completely wrong..

There are certain experiments and data which makes them believe the globe is warming up much quicker in the past 3 decades..

At the same time, here MC argues against the same with certain set of graphs.. This could be very selective ones to suit the story he chose to tell.. But he used all the real data to plot the story.

Im confused on whether the globe is warming or cooling? :)

When we say freezing, are we talking about all the life or just humans? because there are plenty of life forms that can thrive in freezing climates, without sun.

well its just humans and other delicate life forms who need to worry.
i've forgotten the graph details. they showed results of experiment which were carried out on global warming theories right?

I remember there was one graph which gave details of sea level. which would decide regarding melting of polar ice caps :). the experiments didn't show any increase in water level

I also agree that sometimes we don't realize the real things. Like he talks about oxygen in JP. We all know, after Flourine the next most reactive element is Oxygen. It doesn't spare anything. Neither Iron nor Hydrogen. Even the respiratory system of animals evolved out of this natural selection. We are growing old because Oxygen is eating our cells slowly. But we have come to believe that it is a lifegiver, isn't it?.

Iron might be thinking, what a poisonous planet this is! It turns me into rust in no time...

If Oxygen doesn't do anything with Hydrogen we wouldn't have water.. :P

Agree, nature has it's own equilibrium.. But on the natural things.. When human inventions spoils this equilibrium, will nature has the ability to adjust as MC says in this book? It's pretty difficult isn't it?

Anbu wrote: "If Oxygen doesn't do anything with Hydrogen we wouldn't have water.. :P

Agree, nature has it's own equilibrium.. But on the natural things.. When human inventions spoils this equilibrium, will nat..."

Just completed this book.

What MC says is, there is no equilibrium to disturb in the first place. The climate/atmosphere is always in flux due to disturbances from various species or factors. And just like others, humans are too small to bring about fast and abrupt climatic changes. Doesn't mean the climate doesn't get affected by our carelessness. It does, but not in a catastrophic manner as exaggerated by popular environmentalists.

I am yet to come to terms with what MC is trying to convey through this. But as a book, i would say its pretty lousy. I felt like it was written to just show-off the author's research without making any effort to conceal it unobtrusively in the plot. I just don't get why Kenner wants to argue with everyone he comes across especially when he got other important things to worry about. I think the bad guys tried a bit too hard to stop Kenner. They could have just sent one dumb guy after another to Kenner and challenge him saying 'we, humans are ****' and then just watch him give his lecture. I was hopelessly hoping there would be some mighty twist in the end where Drake turns out to be just a fall guy or Morton turns out to be the real bad one or Jennifer works for Drake or things like that - but so disappointed that nothing of that sort happened.

Of all the conversations, i liked the one with Hoffman the most. And i was trying to relate this novel to that conversation. This novel seems to be a last straw - a desperate act to combat the rising wave of paranoia surrounding global warming (to the extent of affecting US presidential elections in 2000/2001). I don't recollect reading anywhere else that this entire hype surrounding global warming might just be a hoax. But again, calling MC an industry agent contracted to correct their image sounds too far-fetched. If the industry really wants to set the record straight, i believe they could also follow the same path as the environmentalists - buying out sections of the popular media - print and electronic.

I interpret what MC says as the human beings are too small in the universe to make so big changes and the nature knows how to handle the small disturbances.

Even I was disappointed that there is (view spoiler)[ no twist at the end. Morton alive is a very small one compared to the twists we encountered in various thrillers. (hide spoiler)]

About the lectures by Kenner, isn’t it same with all those books which were written after a lot of research. Even in Da Vinci code, Langdon was giving a lecture about Holy Grail to Sophie when someone was out to kill him and the whole Paris police was in search of him for a murder. :)

True, this was the first one I came across which was arguing strongly against environmentalists’ claims. I don’t think there are a lot among the popular fiction on this.

There are some contradictions if I remember correctly. Once Kenner says, ‘If you are against death sentence that doesn’t mean you are against punishing the guilt’. But in another place he says, ‘Why to worry about the things that would happen after so many centuries. Mankind will learn what to do when such things occur’.

So is he saying we have to take care not to pollute it so badly? Or Is he saying don’t worry about the future, the future generations will know how to take care of the things?

i never felt the conversations are so out-of-place in da vinci code - at least he was not just picking on random strangers trying to explain the sacred feminine. I can understand Kenner's urge to have these talks with Peter or Sarah but i just dont understand why he gives a damn abt wat Ted or Ann thinks abt global warming - when he had only a few hours to stop the 'catastrophe'.

I don't remember Kenner saying 'be passive'. He was saying that misguided activism is more dangerous than just being passive - and that part i found hard to agree with.

Regarding hte forest comming after other CO2 emitting creatures could be right. In one of his books he talks about O2 <-> CO2 equilibrium. CO2 warms the earth, lack of CO2 freezes the earth. So it must have been these creatures who brought the earth back into warm planet. But that must have then made earth a hot hot place, then forest evolved(particularly in tropical areas) to suck all the co2 and cool it. Sounds like a good theory.

Aditya wrote: "i just dont understand why he gives a damn abt wat Ted or Ann thinks abt global warming - when he had only a few hours to stop the 'catastrophe'..."

Anyway he was having those talks when they were on the flight where he can't do anything but wait to reach the destination.. What better time-killing than having an argument with someone who has a totally opposite views to you? :)

Also if you have noticed, he gets frustrated when Peter doesn’t understand the things. Because he wanted him to understand the things. But when he speaks with Ted and Ann, he took their counter arguments pretty lightly.

Aditya wrote: "He was saying that misguided activism is more dangerous than just being passive - and that part i found hard to agree with..."

Don't you think he is right on this? I think I agree with him on it, misguided activism is always very dangerous than being passive.. The passive guys do not do anything for or against a cause. But the misguided guys advocates for a wrong reason (sometimes successfully) among the mass.

For ex., the religious terrorists are some kind of misguided activists for what they believe as a service to the God. Don’t you think those who believe in God and not doing anything are much better than these guys who kill for their belief?

Aravind wrote: "Regarding hte forest comming after other CO2 emitting creatures could be right. In one of his books he talks about O2 CO2 equilibrium. CO2 warms the earth, lack of CO2 freezes the earth. So it mus..."

Sounds a good theory Aravind.. But I'm not sure whether this is scientifically established.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News...

Here is a more recent article on the latest climate convention in Doha. With my new found 'knowledge' from State of Fear - i had fun reading this - especially when i come across words like 'unprecedented' 'havoc' etc...

On the whole the article seems to be about $100 billion to be paid by developed countries to developing nations.

And Pakistan, really? - i didn't know it was playing host to all those catastrophic events in the past few years :)

Aditya wrote: "http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News...

Here is a more recent article on the latest climate convention in Doha. With my new found 'knowledge' from State of Fear -..."

LOL... I think I would never be able to read news abt climate change without a bit of doubts on the claims..