This is by no means an easy or straightforward undertaking in many cases, but that’s the undertaking. I don’t need to independently assess the evidence. I believe it because scientists and other parties I’m inclined to trust say we have, while a network of obsessed, isolated cranks say we haven’t. I’ve never been there or seen it directly. I don’t know for sure whether we’ve landed on the moon. They simply have to assess the state of play of the debate. The point I make at great length and questionable coherence here is this: A reviewer does not have to become a climate expert to assess the op-ed inside Crichton’s book. It’s admirable, I suppose, that Crichton was willing to wade into the material, but the fact that he can cite papers in footnotes doesn’t mean that he’s marshaled a compelling case. This is the longest out of all of the Michael Crichton books that I’ve picked up so far, and so predictably it has the same problem that some of his others do where it’s perhaps 100 pages too long. But the op-ed inside it is not “compelling.” As anyone familiar with the history of this issue will know, it’s a fairly standard recital of contrarian claims (nothing you couldn’t get in 15 minutes of surfing over at ) that have been addressed and rebutted by scientists in the field over and over again.

With the exception of Chris Mooney, who writes on science for a living, almost every reviewer, whether positive or negative about the book overall, said something along the lines of Steve Wasserman: “inside this bloated 600-page book is a fierce and compelling Op-Ed piece desperate to get out.” More reflections below the jump.I read dozens of reviews in the course of writing mine, and one thing that struck me is how uniformly ignorant people - even very intelligent, educated people - are of climate science. To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist.

Crichton state of fear