State Of Fear? or state of confusion ?

This post, (via Desi Pundit) or to be precise, the innuendo in it which is inane, yet oft-repeated,
has prompted me to write my own impression of Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

First, I have to admit I was disappointed by the novel.The style of novel was too pulp and tenor too earnest as opposed to almost ironic (sardonic?) tone of his earlier novels.
Apparently Crichton's was trying too hard to debunk global warming.

However, the gist or moral of the novel , that environmentalism has become modern dogma and global waraming secular version of D-Day, is still relevant, notwithstanding disappointing literary style.

The other moral, about which Crichton has written in prevous books, is the fallacy (hubris?) that humans know enought about ecology to preserve it, or that life is in danger from human actions.

Whether global warming is occuring because of human activities, what is the rate of it and, what is more important, what is the effect should be open for further research.

Sadly rigid dogma and ad hominem attacks coupled with fearmongering, which goes for modern liberalism, will ensure that an interesting and critical area of study will be hostage to idealogical posturing and turf far.

Lastly, from the link that above link linked to (some bad construct this is......)

"IS global warming and the FEAR of a doomsday the only reason for us to care about the environment? Is fear the only motivating factor behind going green?"
, and, " I consider myself as someone who cares about the environment. I believe that we should act to ".........

Truly noble intentions, however, as someone (Samuel Johnson ?) remarked , "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (This idea, expectedly,finds resonance in the book.)