The book is "demonstrably garbage," Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford climatologist, said in an interview yesterday. Petroleum geologists may like it, he said, but only because "they are ideologically connected to their product, which fills up the gas tanks of Hummers
Schneider is Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy
and
Co-Director, Interdisclipinary Program in Environment and Resources, both at Stanford University^[1]

One of the authors cited by Crichton
"Wrong, wrong, wrong," said Dr. Martin Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. "The best face I can put on this is that he doesn't know what he's doing. The worst is that he's intentionally deceiving people as he accuses environmentalists (of doing) in 'State of Fear.' " http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002170342_warming04.html Hoffert is one of th authors quoted by Crichton http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html My research interests are global environmental change, geophysical fluid dynamics, oceanography, biogeochemical cycles and alternate energy technology.

Senator James Inhofe The senator did not explain quite how 2,000 top scientists in 100 countries could have been persuaded in 2004 to produce a rare consensus that gas emissions left unchecked will produce a series of catastrophes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4319574.stm

he story finally ends, mercifully, after 567 pages, of which at least 100 are devoted to anti-environmental sermons and Global Warming "education". A full 20 pages of scientific references follow

Both the pro-environmental Day After Tomorrow movie and now Crichton's book have done the public a disservice by fueling misconceptions about the Global Warming issue with their bad science

Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters Chief Meteorologist, The Weather Underground, Inc. http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp

Hardy says: The forests [around Kilamanjaro] need replanting for many reasons, but I think that [Crichton's] idea is preposterous, without some larger-scale changes. But UMass-Amherst climatologist Douglas Hardy, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/?page=2

Pew center
the novel contains a number of strawman arguments, misinterpretations of the scientific literature, and even a few misleading statements drawn from the so-called “skeptics.”

Crichton’s cherry-picking of sites to show cooling is a common, yet irrelevant tactic.

Here again, Crichton is attacking a strawman - at the time that State of Fear was published, no scientists had claimed that global warming was affecting hurricanes.

the description of Hansen’s testimony within Crichton’s book is not the real version, but a distorted version presented by the well-known skeptic Patrick Michaels ten years later Crichton’s misrepresentation of history here suggests that either he was rather cavalier in his research or he simply preferred Michaels’ fictional version of events.

The one-sidedness of his novel and personal comments have actually contributed to further politicization of climate change science, enhancing a phenomenon that Crichton himself argues is ultimately dangerous.

Pew Center on Global Climate change http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm The Pew Center on Global Climate Change brings together business leaders, policy makers, scientists, and other experts to bring a new approach to a complex and often controversial issue. Our approach is based on sound science, straight talk, and a belief that we can work together to protect the climate while sustaining economic growth.

⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄