[kjs3]

Crichton is a really bad person to count on as a paragon of science reporting beyond being a journeyman doctor. He's a climate change denier, among other anti-science stances. And if you disagree with him, he might put you in a book, using your name and profession, but making you a child molester.

[graeme]

I didn't say he was a good example of science reporting. I said he made the same argument as above, at a far earlier date. This shows the argument itself isn't necessarily recent.

For those downvoting the parent comment because of the final sentence – Crichton actually did do that. It was highly unusual.

[brandonmenc]

What are some of his other anti-science stances? (genuinely curious)

[graeme]

There's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

Crichton does have a point that computers models are not valid replacements for repeatable, empirical testing of hypotheses.

But then he went far, far past what his skeptical attitude supports empirically. He flipped from "we can't prove the anthropocene hypothesis is true" to "it's very false, and funded by a conspiracy of enviro-nuts".

[brandonmenc]

That's still not one of his "other anti-science stances."

The original comment implied that along with denying climate change he's also like, an anti-vaxxer, a creationist, or a flat-earther.

[graeme]

Oops. Missing the "along with client-change denial" part in the parent comment. Nothing else comes to mind. Crichton identified himself as an advocate of science, not the opposite.

This speech is the other notable place Crichton made specific scientific comments. It's possible he's wrong about some of his claims, but he approaches them from the point of view of a rationalist:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html