Scientists vs Common-folk

I think it's most important to note that I am reading this as a scientist first, and a science-fiction nerd second. Although Crichton frequently writes about science and does his research, he seems to view science differently than a scientist would. I disagree with him on page 716 when he says, "We can't 'assess ' the future, nor can we predict it... An informed guess is just a guess." He puts forward his extremely specific guess of a less than 1 degree increase in temperature for the future. I don't know where he got this number, but if any guess is just the same, let me put mine forward. I guess that the temperature will raise by 100 degrees Celsius because the Earth may be attacked by fire monsters. His guess is probably no more informed than mine (although it fits in the paradigm of the gradual change we've been seeing). By using information, we can graph trends and predict future numbers to a reasonable extent. This comes with a Cartesian understanding of graphs (and the world).
This misunderstanding of science by non-scientists manifests itself in some of Chrichton's characters. On page 102, the lawyers Balder and Evans have a conversation about the theory of global warming. They both take a stance, Evan's saying global warming is hardly a theory, and Balder saying it is just a theory. They're both wrong (by Crichton's intention? is this character design or author's opinion manifesting itself?). The truth is science does not lightly use this term. Some other theories include gravity, natural selection, Newton's laws of physics, Einstein's relativity, etc. A theory arises in science only after standing up to extensive testing and scrutiny. What is important is that the theory can be disproven, unlike Evan's stated. This could happen to global warming. There seems to be an issue of legitimation and qualification here. These two characters are lawyers, not scientists. I was reminded of Fausto-Sterling when these two were bickering, and her argument of authority in her book. She is a scientist and knows what she's talking about; these two are not and should shut the hell up. A bit blunt, but I would be at their mercy in understanding law. Why do they have the authority to assume they understand science?