There is at least one extemely well known scientist that agrees with Crichton. Dr. Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, has placed "State of Fear" on his recommended reading list.
My impression is that articles such as this, which always claim a consensus, are misleading, I don't at all think there is a consensus in favor of global warming theories.
Further, I think there is no distortion of scientists' work in the book, it merely shows the work from another point of view. For instance, Chrichton makes sure to point out that Hansen believes in global warming.
I thought it was a very fair book that brought out the fact that popular science - which is essentially what global warming is - is a sort of Chicken Little rumor factory that has people believing the rumor despite all evidence to the contrary. The Great Population Explosion was an example of this.
However, when the sky does not fall and it all turns out to be a rumor, there is never any formal retraction of the "science" that led to this, but simply a shift to the creation of another rumor.
I liked the book a lot, btw, and I found it a real page turner!
"There is at least one extemely well known scientist that agrees with Crichton. Dr. Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, has placed "State of Fear" on his recommended reading list."
---<>-<>-<>---
He's not the only one. Most scientists I speak with, who have actually studied the situation, are skeptical that there is anything yet proven regarding how much of the warming is due to man.
Why tarnish the anti global warming scientists by bringing up that crackpot?