Looking at the New Republic article, I found it strangely odd that they (editor/writer) failed to even note that this is indeed an entertaining book. Instead of conceding that Crichton has an interest in global warming, recreational at least and political at best, and that he is indeed even remotely good as an author, the article seems to completely bash his sense of character. He is a man, so the gender roles seem to fit pretty well (I didn't really notice them until the women in class noted it), and suit him. He doesn't presume to be a leading expert in climate science but rather someone who is a bit worried about the current state of things, such as the inconsistencies applied between Global Warming and other possible crisis (lax use of explicitly important terminology for example), and is using his preferred profession/method of communication to show this. The article also seems to portray him as some maniacal man out for power, a proverbial hitler, based on his devils advocate stance in State of Fear, using comments that seem to be hugely out of context to further this idea...

"In a 1995 interview with Time magazine, Crichton hinted at an agenda beyond dazzling people with roller-coaster plots and astounding Hollywood special effects. Somewhat ostentatiously citing Jean Cocteau's The Difficulty of Being, Crichton explained that the French writer "said what I've always believed about myself. He didn't care about being noticed for his style. He only wanted to be noticed for his ideas. And even better for the influence of the ideas."

Of course he did... it generates buzz, and all authors want recognition for their work. Even conceding that there is the slightest possibility that Crichton has some world domination scheme cooking behind the scenes, surely books aren't the worst that could happen...

http://www.tnr.com/article/michael-crichtons-scariest-creation