To clarify: I do not dispute Crichton's right to imagine an alternate future where the dangerous people are the ecologists. I'm sure he writes glibly. If he has a point to make, fine, let him make it. I'm sure it's easy reading and interesting. If he raises questions, fine. Let's ask those questions.
But I think a science historian might provide better insight into how consensus form and what they mean. Naomi Oreskes 80 minute lecture on climate change might provide more informed insights into those very same questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0