Today’s New York Times has a disgraceful column by Dave Itzkoff critical of the late Michael Crichton. Itzkoff, who once wrote on the pages of the NYT that Crichton was an “unabashed demagogue,” apparently doesn’t like the fact that some on Crichton’s work — State of Fear on climate change and Next on biotechnology — included elements of fiction. Fiction, my dictionary tells me involves “invention rather than fact.”

Itzkoff didn’t like the themes of these two books and in cowardly fashion invents some unnamed people who were disappointed in Crichton. Itzkoff’s hit job speaks for these people to argue that Crichton’s fiction “seemed to convey certainty about facts that were in dispute” — Shock!! Horror!! A novelist who makes up fictional stories — who knew, least of all a book review editor at the New York Times? Itzkoff doesn’t appear to take issue with Crichton’s work on swarms of flesh eating nanobots, islands with dinosaurs, time travel, alien lifeforms, or many other inventions found in Crichton’s work.

Of course the hit job on Michael Crichton results from his real world skepticism about the science and politics of climate change. The Times explained anger at Crichton’s work in his obituary:

Mr. Crichton was attacked by environmentalists for presenting a tendentious picture of the issue. In his defense, Mr. Crichton said that he accepted the reality of climate change but thought that its dangers could not be known with any certainty and had been exaggerated by environmentalists.

Of course, with the criticism of State of Fear Crichton received what every author desires — he had everyone talking about and debating his writing (Next not so much). And on important issues of science and technology in society, that alone should command our respect. Crichton was skeptical about many things, especially the power of scientists and technologists in modern society. This is a fundamentally political topic and was present throughout his work, climate change being just another locus for exploring this common theme.

Regrettably, the politicization of the climate change issue is so thorough that any expression of skepticism about science or politics leaves one at risk of people dancing on your grave when you are gone. From the NYT we should expect better.