From what I've read of Michael Crichton's State of Fear so far, I am getting the feeling that global warming itself is a hybrid. There are a lot of inputs that affect global warming, pollution: automobiles, cattle, and government enforcements such as increase in required fuel efficiency in cars. Global warming then causes water levels to temperatures and levels to rise, which in turn causes less favorable conditions for some of the aquatic life...
I think Crichton kind of shows this complexity in one of his passages on pg 120, where Balder says, "You think sea level is simple? Trust me, its not...How about the glacio-hydroisostatic modeling?" Balder goes on and on about how complicated it is to measure the sea level. From this we get a feeling that Balder wears kind of a big head/the mood it sets off is that he feels as if he is better than everyone. Also, by Crichton putting all of these science terms in there in a kind of story format, he is just barely revealing the complexity of this hybrid, global warming. I think the best review to sum up what I have just discussed is the one by USA Today, "Crichton marries compelling subject matter with edge-of-your seat storytelling...He can impress techno-geeks eager to analyze the scientific data he weaves through his stories."
Global warming is most definitely a hybrid. The problem I'm having is trying to sift through all of the different contributing facts that are being proposed. Crichton will introduce a new theory, instantly refute it, and then support it again. I feel his intention is to get the audience to undeniably disagree with global warming by showing how completely intricate and complex it really is, and how it's nearly impossible to pinpoint the exact indicators of the problem. Frankly, I think he is just screwing with my mind more than accomplishing anything significant.
ReplyDelete