State of Fear

“Our AV team. They prepare visuals for the jury. Some of the data is extremely complex. And we’re trying to find the simplest and most forceful way to present it.” 

Drake claims global warming is not a uniformly accepted idea because of industrial interests’ corrupting influence. Jennifer’s position in this passage is less contentious; she opens Evans’ eyes to the fact that the science behind global warming is neither unanimous nor easy to understand. Shortly afterwards, Balder proves this by showing how little Evans understands about the theory. In the context of a major environmental case, the Vanutu lawsuit, Jennifer mentions the importance of presenting information in a clear and compelling way to convince the public.

“‘If there’s anything worse than a limousine liberal,’ Morton said, ‘it’s a Gulfstream environmentalist.’”

By this point in the novel, Morton is undergoing a major transformation. He goes from trumpeting the theory of global warming to criticizing himself and his entourage for not “walking the walk” when it comes to environmentalism. En route to San Francisco in his private jet, he muses that they are producing more pollution on a single flight than most people of the world will in an entire year. Such realizations show Morton’s worldview is shifting, and that he is being influenced by information shared by Kenner.  

“Do you know, my friends, that we know more about the moon than we do about the Earth’s oceans? That’s a real environmental problem. We don’t know enough about the planet we depend on for our very lives. But as Montaigne said three hundred years ago, ‘Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known.’”

Standing onstage at the NERF banquet, Morton makes a spectacle of himself, shocking the audience by announcing his withdrawal of financial support for the organization. He prefaces that with this statement, implying that it should be hard to base major strategy and policy decisions on rather thin evidence. At the same time, the quote from Montaigne alludes to the misguidedness of the environmentalists’ beliefs, suggesting the complete reversal of Morton’s stance on global warming. 

“‘Uh sir,’ one said, ‘with all due respect, is it really accurate that abrupt climate change will lead to catastrophe? Because the background materials we were given—’ ‘Yes, God damn it,’ Drake snapped, ‘it’ll lead to a catastrophe. Believe me, it will! Now make the damn changes!’” 

By the end of “Akamai,” Drake’s true colors begin to show, as evidenced by his dismissal of a NERF graphic designer’s questioning of the group’s language of catastrophe. Having earlier charged industrial groups with manipulating scientific research to suit their agenda, he now proves guilty of essentially the same thing. He insists that the designer create a poster that conforms to NERF principles of imminent and cataclysmic global warming, regardless of the truth. Later in the novel, this is echoed in Professor Hoffman’s theory that the media are consciously deploying the language of crisis and catastrophe to an extreme degree to characterize global warming.

“I’m telling you that nobody knows exactly what any of these groups do with their money. Because government oversight of foundations and charities is extraordinarily lax.” 

By asserting that there is essentially no oversight of the finances of these organizations, Kenner paints their operations as suspect. He tells Evans, Sarah, and others it is possible Morton was inadvertently funding ELF as money from other groups trickled down to it. This makes his next assertion, that NERF may be connected to eco-terrorists as well, erode Evans’ and Sarah’s trust in that organization. 

“‘Then how do they make computer models of climate?’ Evans said. Kenner smiled. ‘As far as cloud cover is concerned, they guess.’” 

In the beginning of “Terror,” as Kenner and his entourage prepare their first counter-terrorism effort, en route to Antarctica, he uses the opportunity to inform Evans of his dismissal of the theory of global warming. In this case, he characterizes scientific models as mere guesses because they are projections without empirical evidence. This begins to shake Evans’ trust in the theory of global warming. 

“Your heart may be in the right place, Peter, but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.” 

As “Terror” progresses, Kenner and Sanjong produce more information, graphs, and references to further dismantle Evan’s belief in the theory of global warming. As part of this effort, they openly criticize him for being ill-informed, though they recognize that his intentions are good. Evans’ eventual flexibility and willingness to accept Kenner’s point of view shows how he differs from well-intentioned but stubborn characters like Ted.  

“Sanjong and I gave you a careful, peer-reviewed interpretation of data. Made by several groups of scientists from several different countries. And your response was first to ignore it, and then to make an ad hominem attack.” 

Evans does not accept Kenner’s ideas immediately, however. He resists the idea that there is no consensus in scientific research on climate change, and he falls back on the charge that studies not supporting the theory of global warming must be funded by industry interest groups. Ever the debater, Kenner counters this dismissal by suggesting that Evans is not being rational. 

“People like Kenner did nothing but criticize the good work of environmental organizations, without whose efforts the environment of a place like Los Angeles would be much, much worse. Face it, he thought. The world needed help. It desperately needed an environmental perspective. And nothing in Kenner’s smooth manipulation of facts would change that truth.” 

Back in Los Angeles after nearly losing his life in Antarctica, Evans still finds Kenner’s point of view hard to accept. Readers can empathize with Evans’ perspective: It seems incontrovertible that environmentalist groups are a good thing, and that Kenner’s criticisms of them do not help. As the book goes on to share more and more evidence about the ill intent of ELF, NERF, and other environmentalist groups, and to introduce more and more scientific evidence casting doubt on global warming, this empathy makes the reversal of Evans’ beliefs appear more relatable. 

“Every time it snows people forget all about global warming. Or else they decide some warming might be a good thing after all. They’re trudging through the snow, hoping for a little global warming. It’s not like pollution, John. Pollution worked. It still works. Pollution scares the shit out of people. You tell ‘em they’ll get cancer, and the money rolls in. But nobody is scared of a little warming. Especially if it won’t happen for a hundred years.” 

The surreptitiously recorded conversations with Drake that Evans sees on the DVD that was hidden for him are the turning point in his acceptance of Kenner’s views. In this passage, Drake makes the point he’d earlier said to his graphic designer, only more strongly: He is intent on manipulating information to increase public acceptance of his group’s agenda. He seems more interested in convincing people than in telling the truth, strictly speaking. This realization shocks Evans enough that he begins to accept Kenner’s alternative views. 

“She liked being around Kenner. He was so knowledgeable, so skilled. He knew what was going on. He was quick to respond to any situation. Whereas Evans was a nice guy, but…” 

The interpersonal relationships of characters are generally less emphasized in State of Fear than the ideas about climate change and the thriller’s plot. However, Sarah’s initial dismissal of Evans and infatuation with Kenner make Evans’ growth over the course of the novel more notable. As he becomes more confident—eventually saving Sarah’s life—her estimation of him rises, consequently encouraging readers to see him favorably as well. 

“He realized then that his experience in the crevasse had changed him—and changed him permanently.” 

As Sarah recovers from her lightning strike, Evans marvels at how he rescued her. Reflecting on the experience in Antarctica, he becomes conscious of his own growth, more confident in his abilities, and willing to confront the eco-terrorists. Having nearly lost his life in the crevasse, Evans accepts both the dangerous potential of the eco-terrorists and the erroneousness of their beliefs in global warming. 

“If you’re a longtime resident of the Grand Canyon State, you’ve probably noticed that our weather is changing, and scientists have confirmed that what’s behind it is our old culprit, global warming. Today’s flash flood is just one example of the trouble ahead—more extreme weather conditions, like floods and tornadoes and droughts—all as a result of global warming.” 

This passage serves as an “authentic” example of media reporting on global warming, yet also presents the media as misleading. Evans and the others who were at the site of the flash flood in McKinley State Park know that it was directly caused by the actions of ELF, and not the result of global warming. This dramatic irony paints the media as an inept player in a dangerous game, and makes it seem more plausible that Evans and others would accept the argument that the media spread inaccurate information about climate change. 

“As cities expand all around the world, we might see an increase in average ground temperature simply because of urbanization. Without any global atmospheric effect at all.” 

In this passage from “Snake,” Kenner’s niece Jennifer takes a turn educating Evans with a barrage of graphs and factoids. She uses these to support the idea of the urban heat effect, whereby local temperatures in developed areas rise because there is more and more artificial material (like concrete, asphalt, and metal) reflecting heat rather than absorbing it. Because this is a variable, local phenomenon rather than a uniform, global one, it appears like strong evidence to dispel the theory of global warming. 

“‘You don’t know,’ Jennifer said, ‘but whenever you have one team doing all the jobs, then you’re at risk for bias. If one team makes a model and also tests it and also analyzes the results, those results are at risk. They just are.’” 

Amplifying Kenner’s dismissal of computer models of climate change because they lack empirical evidence, Jennifer tells Evans that bias in scientific research is widespread. She mentions this within a specific context, to make clear that if juries in the Vanutu case are given any evidence of doubt, then the case might be lost. This is language that Evans, as a lawyer, understands, yet it also makes the theory of global warming appear less sound. 

“Evans had also noticed, in passing, how frequently Jennifer had spoken of a changing climate. First it was cold and wet, then it was warm and dry and the glaciers melted, then it was wetter again, and the glaciers came back. Changing, and changing again. Constant change.” 

At end of a long passage in which Jennifer tells Ted that the forests of the Yosemite are not primordial and untouched, but only the latest in a series of stages, Evans reflects. The lesson he takes away from her lecture is that nature is not something to be preserved or balanced, but is instead constantly evolving. This critiques the theory of global warming from yet another perspective: What is characterized as catastrophic climate change, even if such change exists, might be a natural evolution. 

“However, by 1990, no scientist believes in the balance of nature anymore. The ecologies have all given it up as simply wrong. Untrue. A fantasy. They speak now of dynamic disequilibrium, of multiple equilibrium states. But they now understand that nature is never in balance. Never has been, never will be. On the contrary, nature is always out of balance.” 

Evans’ conversation with Professor Norman Hoffman at the NERF conference echoes Jennifer’s earlier assertion: Change is a constant part of nature. Hoffman’s adds to this idea by putting it into a broader context. The “politico-legal-media complex” (456) characterizes the dynamism of nature as chaos, which it ties to a message of human-caused environmental catastrophe. All of this misses the point, in his eyes, because the “dynamic disequilibrium” of nature is simply what it is, not a new catastrophe. 

“The cause may change over time, but the fear is always with us. Before terrorism we feared the toxic environment. Before that we had the Communist menace. The point is, although the specific cause of our fear may change, we are never without the fear itself. Fear pervades society in all its aspects. Perpetually.” 

Hoffmann’s theory is that the contemporary presentation of global warming as a catastrophic threat is only the latest in a string of concepts historically presented as threats to society. Communism and nuclear war were major threats depicted in the media during much of the 20th century, but as the power of communism waned, global warming was ushered in to take its place. According to Hoffmann, political powers (and the media, by association) work to constantly keep society controlled by giving it something to fear, effectively exemplifying the concept that gives State of Fear its title. 

“‘I can’t continue this,’ Ann said. ‘You enjoy arguing. I don’t. I just want to make the world a better place.’” 

Ann represents what State of Fear characterizes as a well-intentioned but misguided position on global warming and environmentalism, much like Evans did earlier in the novel. Though she professes to support environmentalist causes, Ann epitomizes Western consumerist culture, essentially neutralizing her intentions to better the world. Kenner says that Ann is ill-informed about climate science, which, in his eyes, only exacerbates her misguided intentions. 

“Ninety minutes later, the much-weakened tsunami train struck the beaches of California. It consisted of a set of five waves averaging six feet in height that excited surfers briefly, but passed unnoticed by everyone else.” 

After all of the drama and action of “Resolution,” culminating in the tsunami that ELF triggers, this passage underscores the ineffectiveness of the eco-terrorist group. Despite their planning and militancy, they fail to wreak the havoc they intended. Instead of a destructive tsunami, they generate a few waves that surfers have fun with and that pass without any alarm. Metaphorically, State of Fear suggests that the declarations about the catastrophes global warming will imminently cause will fade away in the face of depoliticized science.

“The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilize this atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief. They can’t control the climate. The reality is, they run from the storms.” 

Kenner’s final words in the novel stress that human beings are a miniscule part of a vast, complex, and constantly changing world. He attacks what he sees as human hubris: the belief that a species so inconsequential could stop the world from changing and alter the atmosphere, either inadvertently by causing global warming, or consciously by taking action to reverse it. For Kenner, humans pale in comparison to and cower in the face of nature’s force. 

“I need something plain and new. Something honest. I was thinking of ‘Study the Problem And Fix It.’ Except the acronym doesn’t work. But maybe that’s a plus. We will have scientists and field researchers and economists and engineers—and one lawyer.” 

In an optimistic mood after ELF’s final plot fails, Morton announces his plan to found a new kind of environmental organization. Unlike NERF, which was run by Drake and his team of prosecutors, graphic designers, and public relations specialists, Morton envisions an organization comprised of experts in scientific and technical fields, and a single lawyer (Evans). By focusing more on field research, environmental management, and assisting the developing world, Morton expects his organization to sidestep the media manipulation and biases that tainted NERF.

“We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.” 

When directly presenting his own points of new, unfiltered through fictional characters, Crichton echoes Morton’s plan for a new kind of environmental organization. He seeks the same emphasis on field research rather than litigation or the computer models that Kenner also criticizes. In this sense, Crichton’s point of view merges with those of his characters, forging a strong identification between his fictional polemic and his editorial voice.