It may not be a very popular opinion, but I'm willing to make the counter-claim. You are unfortunately making the same mistake with "State of Fear," pushing your own biases to misinterpret the message of the book. It might be one of the most easily misunderstood science fiction/political thriller books written in the past few decades.
The real message of "State of Fear" is that science is being politicized, corrupted by money from both sides
, and its findings used to scare people, politicians, and others into giving political action groups more money and power. That the subject of the book is about Climate Change is just because it was a popular subject at the time, and there was a great deal of research and graphs that can easily be manipulated to prove either side of an argument. It could have been about anything else, electromagnetic waves coming from cellphones, vaccines, etc. If the book had been written later, it very likely would have been written about frakking.
The heroes of the story are all stauch advocates of improving the environment, and it is stated numerous times that their goal isn't just to prove that Climate Change is real, but to prove it with such a convincing argument that there is no room for anyone to disagree. They weren't looking to publish studies and papers in journals. They were going for a slam dunk on a prescedent-setting trial.
The villains of the story are only looking for more donations and power within their community so that they can sway the discussion to a direction that benefits them further financially and influentially.
What "State of Fear" does advocate is funding science anonymously, allowing scientists to do science, rather than even risk feeling beholden to a certain group that very clearly is looking for a particular outcome in the studies they are funding. A worthy goal.