I enjoyed the book immensely, but I think its overall tone is destructive of goodwill towards activism in AGW, and it was hugely selective in its use of statistics. Crichton, had he lived, might well have come to regret this book more than others, although I guess he too might have been subject to confirmation bias on things.

Worth reading this response by James Hansen:

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/viewpoint.cf...

Yeah, I feel weird about the book. The devil's advocate stuff about climate science is NOT helpful or intellectually honest...but I find the broader argument about the media living from crises to crises very compelling.

(Also, the actual plot of the book was super annoying haha)

That’s from 2006 and extrapolates to 2020. Has anyone updated it?

See this page

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

and in particular, this graph

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_...

I read this book shortly after its publication...I haven't thought much about it since I read it, but I'm curious how well its aged, given what I remember about the contents. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what parts made you uncomfortable, though.