Kind of a "reverse ad hominem" argument? There are other sites (such as the one given at the end of the piece) that critically address State of Fear. My comment was directed at the tonality of the piece -- while it would be nice to have as unbiased an assessment of the book's premises as possible, I don't think Romm could address it without bias.
Crichton is well-known for stretching science around his novel's needs -- State of Fear is not an exception to the necessities of fiction. Crichton provides scientific background, but it's not surprising that it supports the viewpoint of the novel. If it didn't, the novel would be less compelling.
The problem is that a great many more people will be reading Crichton's fiction than Dr. Romm's facts (biased as they may be). And too many readers of Crichton's fiction will take it as fact.