In his latest update on Lord VoldeMonckton (“Monckton on the commie plot against him“) Tim Lambert over at Deltoid idly ponders what Monckton’s Crackpot score would be, thereby drawing my attention to John Baez’s The Crackpot Index.
It struck me that Lambert is right in that the index is very apropos, not just of Monckton but climate change / global warming Deniers1 generally. So much so that with only very minor edits it applies almost perfectly. I guess crackpots and wingnuts are pretty much the same everywhere.
To appreciate just how untouched this is I have put my edits from Baez’s original in bold. I have also removed some points entirely as they were not that applicable (not unsurprising since Physics is an older and more storied science than climate research, so there is much broader scope for crackpots).
Without further ado: “A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to climate science:”
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on (cf peer reviewed science) to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction (cf peer reviewed science).
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of “Al Gore“, “the Hockey Stick” or “Global Government“.
9. 10 points for each claim that climate modeling science is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled ” the Hockey Stick ” in item 8.)
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction (hint “Michael Crichton) works or myths as if they were fact.
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
25. 20 points for claiming climate science, in whole or in part, has been ‘debunked’ somewhere.
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to eco–Nazis, stormtroopers, or treehuggers.
34. 40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
So how many points would the average Denier internet posting get? 300 easy? more?Heck, many one sentence digg comments would score triple digit. Should we have a contest to see what site or posting scores the highest?
I think from now on I am going to ask that comments posting links alleging to refute climate science shoud give their Baez Index number. At the very least we should assign forum posting and comments a Climate Denier Crackpot Index # (CDCI #), don’t you think?
——
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 10 … still no evidence.
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
At the risk of accruing a whopping 20 points, Baez deliberately misspelled all three of the names in his point 8 mimicking a common crackpot mistake (indicative of not actually being familiar with more than pop-culture science). An equivalent would be Hanson (sic); most of the other prominent names and talking points are easy to spell (Mann, Gore, IPCC etc). (On the flipside, I’ve seen inactivist names misspelled frequently: MacIntyre, Linzden, Monkton…)
However, I would argue that your choices are in the same spirit as the original — the argument isn’t about Gore, the hockey stick, or global government except at the denier talking-point level.
—-
Well of course your Crackpot Index suppresses original thinkers. We all know that the best thinking is outside the box and all you’ve done is remind people that when dealing with science, you can’t think outside the box because it will violate known laws and facts, thus making one’s thought experiments and formulas inapplicable.
Shame on you for trying to force people to do actual peer reviews and stick to the framework of existing facts. You must be a radical Marxist following an anti-free thinker religion… =P
—-
Oh I’m sorry… Did I miss eco-Nazi? Well it was 2 am, I’m sure you can give me a “carbon credit” or something.
—-
[…] Should we have a contest to see what site or posting scores the highest? The Greenfyre link is:- Climate Denier Crackpot Index Greenfyres (Notes: For complete transparency, 1 have bolded those parts of Greenfyre alterations that […]
[…] Climate Denier Crackpot Index […]
I think you are going waaaay too easy on the cranks,
#35 and #36 should be worth 100 points, not 40.
I debate a person who brings up these points over and over, who is in a position of authority, and he only scored 230, I think he is moving into crank territory.
Although I respect the man otherwise, I think he is totally insane when he discusses anything related to climate, letting his political views and contrarian nature dominate his reasoning rather than analyzing the evidence.
As the previous comment indicates you need to add ‘Global Warming Cult’ to your list of 20pt terms.