Of course, which is why there isn't "one" model, there's lots of models, and they provide a statistical range of expected possibilities. And of course Crichton

Of course, which is why there isn't "one" model, there's lots of models, and they provide a statistical range of expected possibilities. And of course Crichton knows that damned well himself. Applying impossibly high (or inappropriately high) standards of proof is a bog-standard rhetorical tactic - "how can we ever know anything with total certainty after all?". And yet the effects predicted by the consensus models have if anything proved to be too conservative, a possibility that the ever-so-open-minded Crichton never mentioned at all! Certainly that was always a possibility too, and yet he only cared to harp on the one possibility that was most comfortable to his mindset. And that's a kind of bias too - the willingness to dismiss presented evidence when it's inconvenient personally or politically. As they say, though, science advances one funeral at a time. It's just rather sad that it occurred at such a critical time in our planet's history, and that this particular individual had a megaphone and yet used it for such negative ends.