Talk:State of Fear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): no candidates currently - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: Original Stories from Real Life Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title The_History_of_Tom_Jones,_a_Foundling for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

Rather than saying the "hero" is John Kenner, shouldn't it say that the "protagonist" is Peter Evans? The novel follows Evans around for the vast majority it, while Kenner only has a few scenes through his viewpoint.

Indeed for a number of reasons (1. Evans is followed around a lot, and 2. he is the most multidemnsional character) Evans should be recognized as the protagonist.

Contents 1 mosquitos point 2 cite 3 DDT ban 4 why is there no toc on this page? 5 Pseudoscience? 6 Is this really relevant?

[edit] mosquitos point

I think this point should be left out, since it is not actually factually applicable. It is simply sufficient to say that the factual content of the book is disputed, to suggest contradictions is to turn an encyclopedia article into flamebait.

I can't see why you removed it. Its relevant, its true, its an error in the book. All the GW stuff is gumpf too, but thats been done to death elsewhere. William M. Connolley 18:12:23, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

Relevant and true, yes, but it doesn’t add anything to anyone's understanding of the book. Overall, it makes the article appear biased, as the only actual cited item from the book is an error. Objectively, that information adds very little to the article, and may take a bit away from its credibility. For these reasons i'm going to suggest deleting it again. If I dont get any responses to this post, I will remove it once more. RFC.Miros 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing, the actual truth of that is also debated. While DDT is not technically banned for malaria spraying, the negative political influence of the ban, evident by the fighting in the UN about it, pressures many countries to simply not use it against malaria, or use it as much as they should. As a result, some countires have much higher malaria rates when compared to their neighbors who do spray, clearly indicating that much of the bogus science that contributed to the banning of DDT in the first place continues to have negative effects. So, as long as the actual accuracy of the "truth" part of this is in there, i dont think it should be represented as absolute fact. (Disclaimer: I have not read this book, i did not know anything about the malaria ddt ban until i googled it out of curisotiy because of your post and this article.) Miros 13:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

But the people who are actually fighting malaria have no problems with the ban. They appear more than happy with the current state of international treaties regarding DDT.

"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the statu­s quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time­, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control onl­y, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before." [1]

which makes perfect sense given the fact that the major stumbling block in use of DDT is currently residual resistance from the previous overuse for agriculture, mainly cotton growing:

"Corr­elating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission,­ it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide add­ed to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria." (C­hapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural production an­d malaria resurgence in Central America and India", Nature, Vol. 293, ­1981, page 183).

There is tons of evidence out there about DDT's lack of effectiveness in various countries due to resistance (Sri Lanka after the tsunami being a particularly hot one right now), and DDT cases actually rising in various countries spraying DDT until they switched to other insecticides; you just have to sift through the much better publicized "killer environmentalist" screeds. It should mean something that the former articles are written entirely by people who are actively fighting malaria, and are not particularly propounding any pro or anti DDT POV, while the latter articles are entirely written by people who have never expressed any interest in the the third world's suffering from malaria in any other context, and always end with "and so environmentalists can be seen to be mass murderers".

In any event, arguing that there are pressures to avoid DDT which may possibly lead to underutilization and possibly some missed opportunities to fight mosquitos is a far cry from a flat statement that

"Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler."

For one thing, note that there have not been two million people a year dying from malaria since the "ban", total. There are 2.7 million people per year dying now, thirty years later; this represents a huge increase in the past few years which is why the issue is even raised. Even if every single human who had died of malaria since 1972 could have been saved by use of DDT, it wouldn't come near 50 million. As DDT fans Junkscience.com admit in (literally) small print,

***** Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban. -- Ed

Knowingly making a hugely overly large quantitative statement of the death rate from a DDT ban which does not exactly exist, justified by the moral certitude that even one death is too many (presumably, a sentiment that those filthy killer environmentalists with their moral inferiority do not share)? You can see why it's not POV to say that therefore Crichton's flat statement that "the DDT ban killed 50 million" is objectively false, and his corollary that therefore "environmntalists are worse mass murderers than Hitler" is equally false; which makes its inflammatory nature all the more repulsive, to say nothing of the insult it makes to those who lost their families to the Third Reich.

Nevertheless, I just put this in the talk page for completeness, should inquiring minds read this far; the article itself is not the place for all this debate, and it (obviously) will be flamebait and lead to a revert war, as you say; it certainly has on the DDT] page. Maybe somebody with more talent can figure out how to work it in briefly here without bringing on the wrath of the armchair malaria fighters. (Note added afterwards: this is not pointed at you). Gzuckier 14:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Miros wrote:

Relevant and true, yes, but it doesn’t add anything to anyone's understanding of the book.

Err well yes it does. Part of the claim of the book is some factual accuracy and connection to reality. That it contains falsehoods is therefore both relevant *and* adding understanding.

Miros continued...

For these reasons i'm going to suggest deleting it again. If I dont get any responses to this post, I will remove it once more. RFC.Miros 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that next time you wait more than 1 hour for responses, please? And don't mark controversial deletions as minor. William M. Connolley 15:19:49, 2005-07-28 (UTC).

Yeah, to sum up my 99 theses above, to say that "the DDT ban killed 50 million" when there is no DDT "ban" and the total number of deaths, DDT related or not, is far fewer than 50 million, constitutes enough of a whopper to deserve a mention in an article about a book with "two appendices and a twenty page bibliography, lending an air of scientific credibility". Gzuckier 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This point should be left out because it is factually inaccurate. To quote the book word for word:

Page 488 4th paragraph from the top:

"DDT was never banned." "You're right. Countries were just told that if they used it, they wouldn't get foreign aid." Kenner shook his head. "But the unarguable point, based on UN statistics, is that before the DDT ban, malaria had become almost a minor illness." Fifty thousand deaths a year worldwide. A few years later, it was once again a global scourge. Fifty million people have died since the ban Ted. [...]--Mac Davis 08:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This version too is wrong. Read http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/ William M. Connolley 08:26:51, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

1. Even USAID (which is under attack for spending 70% of its budget on consultants) funds DDT. WHO funds DDT. World Bank funds DDT. I doubt they're the only organizations who do so.
2. If there were 50,000 deaths a year when the "ban" was set in 1972, and there are 2.7 million deaths a year now, then the total number of malaria deaths over that period can't be 50 million. This would make it highly unlikely that 50 million deaths could therefore be ascribed to the DDT 'ban', even if you assigned every single malaria death to lack of DDT.
3. The resurgence of malaria contemporaneously with the cessation of DDT use hardly proves that the lack of spraying is the cause of the resurgence; more realistically, the elimination of malaria as a huge public health problem led to a reduction of anti-malaria activity in general, including spraying, which has not yet been sufficiently corrected to meet the resurgence.

The article by Roberts et al. regarding DDT use and malaria in South America (1) correctly observes that health policy makers have shifted the emphasis of malaria control programs from vector control to case detection and treatment and that malaria control has been woefully underfunded in recent years. However, their conclusions that increased malaria is due to decreased spraying of homes with DDT and that DDT is still needed for malaria control do not withstand close scrutiny. The authors did not mention several factors influencing malaria increase in recent decades, including growing antimalarial-drug resistance, the deterioration of public health systems responsible for malaria control, and large-scale migration to areas at high risk for malaria.[2]

Any malaria control initiative must learn lessons from the failed eradication programme of the 1950s and 1960s. One of those lessons is that any chemotherapeutic, prophylactic, or insecticide based tool has a finite duration of efficacy: chloroquine and dicophane (DDT) rapidly induced resistance in Plasmodium spp and Anopheles spp respectively. These organisms reproduce rapidly and as vector/parasite systems have an unrivalled capacity to change, have coevolved an efficient host-parasite relationship, and are hugely diverse below the species level. Anopheles adapts rapidly to ecological, environmental, and climate change; such change is often local and operationally relevant to malaria control. The development of drug and insecticide resistance and ecological and demographic change will outstrip the capacity of any health system to respond even if human resources were available to implement changes in policy on the basis of good evidence.[3] Gzuckier 16:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote the book directly again, page 487 11th paragraph down:

"'Arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitoes, and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere near as good or as safe. Since the ban two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it.' 'But DDT was a carcinogen.' 'No it wasn't . And everybody knew it at the time of the ban.' 'It was unsafe' 'Actually, it was so safe you could eat it. People did just that for two years, in one experiment. After the ban, it was replaced by parathion, which is really unsafe. More than a hundred farm workers died in the months after the DDT ban because they were unaccustomed to handling really toxic pesticides."

Footnotes also add that some estimates put the number of deaths at 30 million deaths.

http://junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm Here is another estimate, with references. It puts the estimate at almost 90 million deaths from malaria since DDT was banned. -Mac Davis 02:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The website also notes at the end, in the fine print, that "Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban." It's hardly an objective viewpoint. I'm not saying good or bad one way or another, but I wouldn't call this a decent reference. jcomp489

Its not. But my point still is, that the book DOESN'T say DDT was banned, it CLEARLY says it was not. --Mac Davis 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You quoted from the book, above: Arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitoes, and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere near as good or as safe. Since the ban... I've bolded the relevant bit. can you spot it? William M. Connolley 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

But I also quoted this: "DDT was never banned." "You're right. Countries were just told that if they used it, they wouldn't get foreign aid." Here I have bolded the relevant part, where the book specifically says that DDT was never banned. This quote is right after your quote. I think you just like to try and perceive the book as providing false information. --Mac Davis 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is typical excuse making. By your own quotes, MC repeatedly states that there was a ban, and once explains that no, in fact, there wasn't a ban. Which is pretty sloppy stuff by any standards. And the foreign-aid stuff is probably junk too. MC's defenders seem to waver between "its all fiction, so who cares anyway" and "there is some kind of fact in there somewhere and we'll excuse all the mistakes". William M. Connolley 12:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

Typical excuse making? it CLEARLY says that there was NO DDT "ban," just a very strong incentive to not use it. '"DDT was never banned." --Mac Davis 01:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your own quote above says: Since the ban two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it.' 'But DDT was a carcinogen.' 'No it wasn't . And everybody knew it at the time of the ban.' 'It was unsafe' 'Actually, it was so safe you could eat it. People did just that for two years, in one experiment. After the ban, it was replaced by parathion, which is really unsafe. More than a hundred farm workers died in the months after the DDT ban because they were unaccustomed to handling really toxic pesticides."

I've bolded the times when MC explicitly states that DDT was banned. How much more do you need? William M. Connolley 12:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

MC does explicitly state that DDT was banned, but after your quoted passage, he explains apparently unclearly, how he uses "ban" as a perhaps over-exaggerating word to describe the situation. The DDT article also points this out:

Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. The ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler. (page 487)

While this point [of the banning DDT], as Crichton raises it, is little more than hyperbole, one of the seemingly salient pro-DDT arguments...

Perhaps I and the editors of the DDT article are interpreting the book incorrectly, it is each reader who must decide for himself what the book says. Sorry sir, but I think I am finished arguing with a blind man. --Mac Davis 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you've already accepted that there is no DDT ban, quoting the DDT page quoting SoF to show otherwise is a bit of a waste of time. I can't understand your blindness: SoF, as you yourself quote, says multiple times that there was a DDT ban. Given that, you can't complain about people pointing out that this is wrong. One correction doesn't remove the multiple mistaken references. But if you are indeed finished arguing, I'm sure we'll all be glad. William M. Connolley 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

Considering that it is pointed out quite clearly in the novel that DDT was not directly banned don't you think that the sentence "Crichton's estimate of fifty million deaths from malaria as a direct result of the ban on use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes is wrong, since there is no official ban on use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes" is simply innacurate. The fact that it is refered to in breif as a 'ban' notwithstanding. If he had written 'economically sanctioned out of use' instead of 'banned' the dozen or so times it was mentioned in the book it would be a lousy read. I think any intellegent reader would assume after the author went out of his way in the first mention of the case to say that it was'nt actually a ban that the use of the word 'ban' later on was an abbreviation. I think you are grasping at straws here to find innaccuracies in the text. You can I suppose argue the 50mil figure but it seems to be a common mistake. The New Yorker proffered the same figure in last October in a totally unrelated artical about Bill Gate's charity works. I think Chriton was being generous in not pointing out that for instance in Sri Lanka the death rate went from 17 to 500,000.

The fact that 'economically sanctioned out of use' might have been a lousy read doesn't invalid the criticisms for a book that has won an award for journalism. If you want, you can try to cite the paragraph in full, and let readers make up their own mind. Schrodinger82 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If we define and define early on in a work that the term 'shake' is a miniscule period of time not to be confused with the act of physically rattling an object about. Then any intellegent reader can assume that if later in the same work we refer to a shake we are speaking stoill of a unit in time. Seeing as the author went out of his way early on to point out that there is no ban then claiming that the book inacccxurately claims there was a ban is disingenuos at best.

He states that the ban on DDT killed 50 million people. Verbatim. This would tend to lead readers to think that he is stating that the ban on DDT killed 50 million people, which is false. Shake or no shake. Gzuckier 15:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No one who has read the book would ever take the implication that there was a formal ban on DDT. He uses the word 'ban' in the last few pages of the book in response to a minor character when there is a good deal of more pressing business to attend to. He goes out of his way earlier in the book to clearly state that there was no ban. You likely have not read the book at all. As you are taking ONE SENTENCE completely out of context. Additionally I am confused by your link in the artical claiming that 50million is innacurate. According to the linked cite there have been 91million deaths. Since it is under 'criticism' I doubt anyone has criticise Chriton or underestimating the death toll but you are free to do so..... -Query

It looks like the site the changed since the original citation, since it now claims that over 13.5 billion "cases of malaria have caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world." In other to get to 50,000,000 by these numbers, everyone in the world would have to be infected once. Just out of curiousity, where did Crichton get his numbers? 71.197.208.203 04:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know where he got his figures. Tonight when I am at home I'll try to dig it up and check the bibliography. I just clicked the link when I was re-reading the artical. I deleted again. I don't know if I am in danger of violating the 3rr rule (new here) but once again the re-re-re-rewrite was factually innacurate. It had claimed thet 'later' he had 'defended himself' by pointing out there was no ban. When actually the first mention of DDT in the novel is where he clearly states that there was no ban. IMHO he never felt the need to 'defend' against a charge that he did not intend to make. I think once again that there are people editing this artical who have not read the book that is the subject matter. Please do debate innacuracies or disagreements in statements and claims made in the book. Just don't invent claims that were not made. And read it first is not a bad yarn....

Actually, what it said was "In defense of the first charge, Crichton makes the following clarification later in the novel." Big difference. Furthermore, the entire quote was provided in its entirety, allowing people to make up their own mind on whether or not it was a valid interpretation. The clear statements that said that there wasn't a ban is contradicted by the clear statements saying that there was. There was also a verifiable source presented that DDT continued to be use for malaria even after the ban. -Schrodinger82 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is also incorrect. The statement that there was not a ban was earlier in the book not later. Does anyone else find it odd that someone who has not read the book (yes schroedinger I do mean you) feels that they are qualifies to edit a reveiw of it. -Query

It's given here without any other source [4] Gzuckier 18:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the same figure is in October's edition of the New Yorker (unrelated artical about Bill & Melinda Gates charity works). I just don't know where it origionally cpomes from. Not MC as plenty of other folks use it. Ironioc in that a primary theme of his novel is that 'common knowledge' is usually wrong.

[edit] cite

Any criticisms of the book from outside sources would not be contentious here. We would be acting appropriately to mention newspapers or books that criticize the book, and by talking about notable sources we don't need to squabble about the truth, since we have the notability for the claim in the first place. 66.41.66.213 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you referring to? Schrodinger82 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DDT ban

Section on criticism argues in favor of Environmentalist POV that efforts to enforce a DDT ban didn't cause any malaria deaths.

• Argument asserts that DDT wasn't exactly "banned" (hinting that only outlawing it would constitute a ban)
• Argument asserts that less than 2 million people died per year to due efforts to ban DDT

Section should be recast to Name the Source of this argument. Something like:

• Environmentalist author Shell G. Ames says that Crichton is wrong about DDT and malaria.
  1. It wasn't "banned"
  2. Not that many people died
• Anti-environmentalist author Ted Shouter says that Crichton is right about DDT and malaria.
  1. While not actually outlawed, the threat to withhold economic aid had the effect of a ban.
  2. Shouter cites mortality statistics (from the following think tanks, pressure groups and UN agencies) detailing preventable malaria deaths of 1 million (2 million? 3 million?) per year

Or give "Ames" the last word; the order doesn't matter. The point is the well-referenced POV's should be in the article - not arguments by contributors. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

THe book itself says that DDT wasn't banned. Did you read the article? William M. Connolley 18:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as Mr. Connolley says; in fact there was quite the little skirmish here a month or two back about whether it was fair to criticize the book for discussing the DDT ban, therefore the second quote was inserted. Secondly, there is a perfectly fine external link to a perfectly fine page explaining in some detail that there isn't a ban, with its own references. Gzuckier 15:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you two evading the point, or simply missing it? Opponents of the DDT ban are using the term "ban" in a loose sense. Did you read what I wrote above, or just jerk your knee? --Uncle Ed 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is there no toc on this page?

why is there no toc on this page? Gzuckier 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

so when I added this section, it appeared. When I deleted it, the toc went away again. now i added it back, and the toc came back. i give up. Gzuckier 15:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As default wiki adds a TOC once there are a minimum number of sections, and I think that number is four - but I might be wrong. you can force a TOC with "__TOC__". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience?

Why is this book showing up in the pseudoscience section? People may disagree with his conclusions, but were his sources and methods spurious enough to warrant being beside tin-foil hats and pyrimid power? I disagree. Mr. Bildo 05:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not psuedoscience as it is a work of fiction. I thought it was well sourced but being self-described as fiction precludes it's psuedoscience tag. --Tbeatty 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its psuedoscience because it is non-science dressed up as science. He uses sources to prop up his conclusions, and ignores the far greater evidence against them. Its exactly analogous to pyramid power William M. Connolley 10:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He claims it's fiction. Pyramid Power does not claim fiction. How is fiction dressed up as science? Secondly, there are legitimate scientists who question Global Warming conclusions and that is not psuedoscience. Simply disagreeing with scientific interpretation does not make it psuedoscience. By that definition, string theory is psuedoscience. --Tbeatty 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience because it gets a journalism award from the AAPG "It is fiction, but it has the absolute ring of truth"Gzuckier 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He uses the disclaimer of fiction to duck any criticisms. But its pretty clear he intends it to be taken seriously (indeed, you appear to be doing so), and many unwise persons have done so. Its not psuedoscience because it disagrees with the consensus: I didn't say that, why are you inventing strawmen? Its psuedoscience because it misuses some science to prop up his pre-decided conclusions, whilst deliberately ignoring the far greater science that says the opposite William M. Connolley 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"State of Fear" contains a fictional story which is clearly exempt from any "science" category. In the appendix of the book, the author clearly states the preceding was a work of fiction. He does, however, offer some non-fiction information that there is no attempt to "dress up". I may disagree with his conclusions, but I didn't see anything disingenuous enough to compare it with "copper healing" and "yoga flight". In contrast, I don't see Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" listed as pseudoscience, despite being heavily criticized by several respected scientists. The reality is that neither should be considered pseudoscience based on the definition of the category and tagging either as such is obvious bias. The pseudo- category tag is dangerously subjective to begin with, but "State of Fear" is not tin-foil hats. Mr. Bildo 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really relevant?

red Barnes, in Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush, states that George W. Bush "avidly read Michael Crichton's 2004 novel State of Fear, whose villain falsifies scientific studies to justify draconian steps to curb global warming....Early in 2005, political adviser Karl Rove arranged for Crichton to meet with Bush at the White House. They talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement. The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more."

I mean. Should I go over to the artical on vegitarianism and qoute the various sourses that claim Hitler as an advocate of a vegitarian diet? It's posted in the 'critiscism' section of the artical so I think we can assume that the unpopularity of Bush is meant to be a guilt-by-assosciation attack on the novel.

Query 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Waited a few days and now I deleted it. If anyone can explain this as anything other than a strange ad hominim I appologize.Query 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)