An "apolitical agnostic"? I don't think so.

  Michael Crichton calls himself an “apolitical agnostic”.   However, his name is practically a household word and thus his words carry significant political power.  He then publishes a book that strongly supports the arguments and beliefs of one specific political party and wonders why so many people on the other side are attacking his book, rather than praising its good points (Yes, I'm saying there are good points).  “Hello Michael!  Have you come back from Andromeda yet?”  It is not that I don’t understand that many people and groups “on the other side” also have significant believability and data problems.  There is just some sort of disconnect here that doesn’t add up.  When a person does this sort of thing, I think they lose their “apolitical agnostic” amateur status, because like it or not, his book is being used for political gain.  And he should have known that, apolitical agnostic or not.  Sorry Michael, but you're a "Pro" now.

  I think “politically naïve” is perhaps a kinder way to describe my conclusions about Michael Crichton at this time.  However, “inflammatory” is another word that came to mind as I listened to his talk with Wilber.  Michael starts their talk by saying that if we spend all this money on climate change and it’s wrong, we will “kill millions of people.”  He later clarifies that if we would instead use that same money to feed the hungry, then we would save millions of lives.  I think this calls for a “Come on, Michael, please give me a break.”  This is not to say that I don’t agree that feeding millions will save millions.  The point I’m making is that this money could come from any source and do the same.  The money spent on the Iraq war immediately comes to mind, but where was Michael then or during any other time where we spent huge amounts of money for questionable reasons?  Basically I think his statement about “killing millions of people” is disingenuous.  For a famous author, this seems a pretty sloppy use of words.