I thought he was a good science extrapolationist.

Jurassic Park for example is no longer science-fiction, with egg nucleus removal and subsequent injection of "naturally" frozen cells  (found  inside bits of animal carcasses encased in ice for example) scientists can now bring back extinct animals via embryonics and subsequent stem-cell cloning.

see recent Cloning 'resurrects' long-dead mice.

re: his anti-SETI views.

His argument was that none of the Drake Equation elements

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

(number of stars in our galaxy, planets, planets with life, evolution, intelligence, can communicate, lifespan)

could be known, and so the equation that founded SETI and therefore SETI itself was a load of unscientific religious hokum.

That's an interesting argument, but I think the premise is myopic.

The drake equation may have _inspired_ SETI research but it is not the end-all be-all of the science of SETI.

Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent-Life Probability mechanics has since evolved out of it.

And probability is a science that sounds like hokum and magic when you try to explain it, but it has remarkable accuracy.  If it didn't, lottery companies would go broke.

re: Crichton's controversial views on global warming.

I agree with his conclusion.

ie. "Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this."

but the way he got there was to argue that science (and particularly any science he disagreed with) was all politics, and that's such a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

I found his article "Aliens Cause Global Warming" to be thought-provoking and filled with a good degree of interesting supporting evidence.

..that unfortunately/frustratingly lead to misleading and unsupported gross generalizations that ultimately served to generate the impression that science isn't science. 

That it's politics with hidden agenda.

The argument structure reminded me of Noam Chomsky, a brilliant linguist and a master at using supporting evidence to support an unsupported conclusion and pass it off as fact.

What they share in common in my observation, is that If you look closely, you can spot the slight-of-hand, the moment when, while making a load of well-supported claims, they slip in a leap that's actually UNsupported. 

And If not paying close attention, it's easy to miss that point.

Even though I disagree with his gross generalization/analysis of scientists and science, I have to agree with his conclusion.

Yet I feel compelled to also say hang-on 'mate, despite the impression created by the article, due diligence in applying the scientific method IS actually employed by scientists.

It all depends on which science or scientists you focus on, but I agree with him that where possible, it should always be done.

The Avante Guardian. ---- Einstein's Hair^2 //Approved.