[Publius6961]

This article is as bad as his novels. His misunderstanding of environmentalism makes him less than helpful in fighting junk science.

Your opinion is usually well-regarded, but isn't expecting us to simply accept your opinion his entire point?

Can you be a bit more specific? It would certainly be more uselful (and scientific) than "na na na na... lousy writing".

[Doctor Stochastic]

More specifically: environmentalism is based on bad science; that doesn't make it a religion (even though religions often utilize bad science themselves.) One should oppose bad science by good science. Trying to re-define environmentalism as religion makes those in opposition look like they have no scientific answers to back up their claims.

As for my dislike of Crichton's writings, it's mostly a matter of personal taste; he uses bad (rather than just extapolated) scientific positions to bolster (what I find) to be poor plots. I haven't liked a single one of his books (to be fair, I only read "Andromeda Strain," "The Terminal Man," and "Sphere"; I quit watching the movies: "Disclosure," and "Congo" in the middle.)