Alright, I've waited to review this book long enough. The fact is, I waited so long because I could never find enough hate filled words to accurately describe my opinion of this book. However I don't think I'll ever find them, so here it goes.



A new goodreads friend asked me why I hate Michael Crichton. I decided I'll post my response here as my review:



As for Crichton, well it's kind of a long story. I'll tell you, but I'll understand if you choose to skip it. You'll notice that Jurassic Park an

Alright, I've waited to review this book long enough. The fact is, I waited so long because I could never find enough hate filled words to accurately describe my opinion of this book. However I don't think I'll ever find them, so here it goes.



A new goodreads friend asked me why I hate Michael Crichton. I decided I'll post my response here as my review:



As for Crichton, well it's kind of a long story. I'll tell you, but I'll understand if you choose to skip it. You'll notice that Jurassic Park and Time Line are still some of my favorite books, but he really lost me with his "State of Fear." It's not just that he is a climate change denier, but more that he completely and totally misrepresents and LIES about science in the process, then claims that he is the only person without an agenda. And even though it is a work of fiction, he makes sure to emphasize that he is writing about the truth in an afterward.



I'll give you a specific example. In State of Fear he calls out a lot of "real" research on climate change. One of the arguments he makes is that climate models are not even close to accurate and then he shows a graph from a peer reviewed publication from several years ago that modeled current climate and was grossly incorrect. Then he basically said "see, climate models are inaccurate." But, if you look at the publication he supposedly took it from, the author had 3 possible climate models-one that shows predicted climate if there was a dramatic decrease in carbon emissions, one, the most likely one, shows predicted climate if there was no change in carbon emissions and one that showed what the climate would look like if there was a dramatic increase in carbon emissions. The author stated that this model was incredibly unlikely. Still, this is the only graph Michael Crichton put in his book, claiming that the author exaggerated the effects of climate change. The most likely graph was actually incredibly accurate.



Further, his entire shitty book is one straw man argument after another, with a ridiculous plot and characters. Every person in his book that believes climate change is happening is a caricature. He has a naive grad student, who learns better once someone explains to her the "truth," a hypocrite actor that preaches for environmental causes but rides in a private jet and has a huge house, a greedy lawyer and environmental groups that profit from the belief in climate change. The characters that don't believe in climate change are suave government agents in nice suits that basically go around and school everyone about how climate change is a farce.



The "plot" is that the environmental groups (terrorists, of course) are going to blow things up (like a piece of Antarctica and glaciers) and create fake tsunamis and such in order to prove that climate change is real so that they can get protection and money from the government. That's right, they are going to destroy the environment and alter the weather so that they can get money and support to stop the destruction of the environment and a changing climate. ????



What finally got me though was his claim that stopping DDT use ended up causing more cases of malaria and implied that Rachael Carson (he never said her name, but you knew who it was) was responsible for the death of thousands of children. This hit home because now he's in MY field. Climate science is not my area of expertise, but biology IS.



As Rachael Carson points out in "Silent Spring" (I noticed it's in your to-read list-yay!) using DDT just selects for DDT resistant mosquitoes, who reproduce and have immunity against our pesticide. Plus, since the chemical kills other animals as well, it kills off the natural predators of the mosquitoes, and since prey items always reproduce faster than their predator counterparts, populations of mosquitoes actually greatly increased in areas where DDT was used after a period of 2-3 years. Rachael Carson cites REAL studies. Not to mention in "The Coming Plague" the author explains in detail the work of scientists in Bolivia, where using DDT killed off the birds of prey and many cats, causing an increase in rat populations that allowed the deadly spread of a hemorrhagic disease.



This type of misinformation is what I'm constantly fighting against on a daily basis (through my job). I have heard many of Crichton's arguments repeated back to me and it drives me insane. I've even heard people talking about it on the bus. Look at the reviews for this book! How many people have been taken in and feel as if they're more informed because they've read it. It's disgusting. What worse is that everything he says has a hint of truth in it. It's believable. It makes sense, on the surface, that ending the use of a pesticide that kills mosquitoes would increase malaria. It's so easy to believe if you don't know more about it.



Anyway, if you doubt anything I just said, just pick up the book. You'll be shocked at what you read. I don't know that you'll be able to stomach it long enough to finish it (I read over 600 pages of it, but stopped 70 pages before the end. I just couldn't go on; it was making me sick.)I don't know what happened to Crichton, but it was an incredible disappointment. I used to like his writing, too. But I can't forgive this pack of lies that has aided in ignorance on such a grand scale.



End of Michael Crichton rant. On to a happier place with better books.