If you've read many of my reviews you know it's not unusual for me to open a review with something like "This is an interesting book" or simply "Interesting".

That applies here also.

I looked through some of the other reviews of this book and I find that in many if not most cases the "number of stars in the rating" depends heavily on whether you agree with the stance of the main character (or one of the main characters, Kenner is the spokesman in most of the narratives but the protagonist is Evans).

Anyway...where was I? Oh, Yah. The book's story telling isn't bad and while I've read better by Crichton, I've also read worse. I did get involved with the plot, liked the characters (fairly well, though Peter did gripe me a bit for a while. The thing is he was supposed to so I really can't complain).

I found the objections raised by several other reviewers to be unfounded, the book is pretty good...and since I largely agree with it, I gave it a bump from 3.5 to 4 stars.

The book itself deals with the global warming controversy. The main character is a lawyer (sorry attorney) working for a large environmental organization. During the course of the book buried (or scattered) amidst the book's plot are dialogs and discussions about said controversy. AND YES the book's point is that much that is assumed about global warming is just that, assumed. While it is the case that if an author wants to make a point and he's writing both sides of a conversation the cards are a bit stacked in his favor, here Crichton does a fairly credible job of offering objections. (though from the other reviews I've read some disagree with me.) I've run on many of the things said here and I've experience situations like the ones pictured in the book. It would have been easy for Crichton to have indulged in Straw Man arguing mostly he avoids this.

The picture of these debates (and the people who try to prove the unprovable and when they can't mostly refuse to acknowledge reality is real. I know some of them) sets the backdrop for a story of environmental terrorists who set out to engineer environmental disasters. From this they will establish credibility...and get money from donors.

In retrospect I can see why reviewers in sympathy with said position might not care for the book.

So, be aware and if you're basically a global warming zealot maybe you give this one a pass. If on the other hand you think the evidence for human caused global warming may have been somewhat overstated (like Nobel Prize winner Dr. Ivar Giaever who "quit" the America Physics Society over their stance that the evidence was "incontrovertible" with which he "strongly" disagreed) or if you consider yourself to still be undecided, maybe you try the book.

Hey the story's pretty good. The arguments aren't bad (though I see some who disagree with me there...wonder why?) In other words, not a bad read and at times pretty good. There's a nice unusual murder weapon and some satisfying action to go with the debates. Enjoy...if it's your cup of tea.