Crackpot index

John Baez invented the crackpot index, a simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

  • A -5 point starting credit.
  • 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
  • 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. ...

And so on, down to the high scoring items like:

  • 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

Guess who just got the big 40 points?

Our old friend, Bob Carter.

And I can't resist pointing out some of Carter's one point scores. You have to scroll down to the end of the article since it's mostly about how he is being oppressed by the man, but near the end we find such gems as:

Since 1998, global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased (Figs. C1, C2), despite rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

False.

Because of the logarithmic relationship between increased CO2 and
increased radiative forcing (i.e. warming potential) (Fig. C7), human
greenhouse gas additions to the atmosphere of 280 to 380 ppm have
already caused 75% of the theoretical warming associated with the
complete doubling to 560 ppm; the final increase to doubling will at
most add another few tenths of a degree of warming.

If you break out your calculator you'll find that log(380/280)/log(2) = 44%. Which isn't real close to 75%. And it's not 44% of the warming, it's 44% of the forcing. It takes many years for things like oceans to warm up, so the warming does not happen instantly as Carter believes.

All things considered, cooling is likely to be more damaging to human
interests than warming, and empirical, data-based computer projections
indicate that cooling is likely to occur early in the 21st century
(Fig. C8).

Look at figure C8:

i-7f70e0d0119c1f450f895a7f3e8b8331-60yearcycle.png

There was a cooling trend starting in 1880 and one in 1940. There was 60 years between 1880 and 1940 so Carter concludes that there is cooling every 60 years. In other words, faced with this sequence: 60, Carter decides that the next number in the sequence must be 60. I've heard of jumping to conclusions but this is ridiculous. If Carter really thinks we are now in a cooling trend, why won't he put money on it?

Tags

More like this

Adapted sort of with permission from The Crackpot Index by John Baez, with contributions from the talk.origins howlers. A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to biology. 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on…
Eli Rabett has a post where he corrects Lubos Motl's blunders about the greenhouse effect, but he left a few crumbs for me. Motl writes (warning, link goes to Motl's blog, which has a design so ugly it makes most MySpace pages look pretty): The Gentlemen at RealClimate.ORG have decided that my…
Today's Australian has a piece by Bob Carter predicting global cooling Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of…
Ben Thurley encounters a global warming denier at the Bali conference: I just had my first conversation with a climate change sceptic/denier here at the UN Climate Change talks. I was at the Hadley Centre stand (it's a research unit associated with the UK Meteorological Office). Everything he said…

Another entertaining demolition of this persistent fool and his foolishness, Tim! Wonder what the dean of Carter's faculty at James Cook Uni makes of his fool's fatal attraction to the editorial pages, and how many of Carter's peers wish he would stick to the rock-hopping he's qualified in?

He says of himself:

Bob Carter contributes regularly to public education and debate on scientific issues, which are related to his areas of knowledge.

Oh, no he doesn't.

So if we accept the 60 year cycle theory, you have to take into account that each cycle has peaked at a higher average temperature.

Maybe that's why the projection part of the graph stops at or near the nadir of the next projected cycle.

I wonder what the next peak of that graph around 2060 would look like?

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 03 Apr 2007 #permalink

"Since 1998, global average temperature has flat-lined or slightly decreased (Figs. C1, C2), despite rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

What is it about denialists that they can't recognise that temperatures can be influenced by both carbon dioxide and other things. Other things like variations in earth's orbit, El Nino, aerosols, earth's albedo. Just because it is influenced by other things does not mean it cannot be influenced by carbon dioxide. Their cognitive failure is puzzling.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Apr 2007 #permalink

Chris O'Neill. Exactly, but what are the respective coefficients and significance? Meantime Lyman et al state (Geo.Res.Let., 2006)

"From 1993 to 2003, the heat content of the upper ocean increased by 8.1 (±
1.4) à 1022 J. This increase was followed by a decrease of 3.2 (± 1.1) à 1022 J between
2003 and 2005. The decrease represents a substantial loss of heat over a 2-year period,
amounting to about one fifth of the long-term upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and
2003..."[and 40% of the heat gain from 1993 to 2003] However Gore and Stern agree that it was ocean warming that produced Katrina in 2005, so Lyman's NASA really needs to get its act together.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 03 Apr 2007 #permalink

Galileo seems to be very popular these days. I wonder if some other person will replace his popularity in the "I'm persecuted for being right, just like XXXXXX" game.

"Their cognitive failure is puzzling."

Not to mention their penchant for non sequiturs.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 04 Apr 2007 #permalink

or this one:

"Einstein thought everything was relative. I have relatives that I sometimes think about. Therefore I am Einstein."

You guys read just like some kind of religious fundamentalists. Just a lay person here.... a drive by blog.
What i do like is that there are liberals and conservatives on the denial side... seems like a more diverse group than you all.. You sound like pretty typical liberals. Bush bashing, clinton loving, evolutionist bowing, skeptic blushing,
aholes.
have a nice day mthr fcking cnts

If the bottom 1% or so of all commenters can somehow be persuaded to disemvowel themselves, à la Kent j, this will save moderators a deal of trouble. Could someone get on it?

Actually Kent J's honesty is a refreshing change.

On the subject of the denialists' cognitive dissonance: how many of them are under retirement age? (Lomborg, Carter and McIntyre come to mind.)

Despite those exceptions, as a group, they seem to be rapidly approaching what's politely known as emeritus status.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 04 Apr 2007 #permalink

This is undoubtedly the source of the 64 year heating/cooling cycle.

Kent J,

You Da Man. Thanks for the laughs. I *always* take seriously someone who mentions those Bush-bashing, Clinton-sucking, God-rejecting islamo-fascist-communist-socialist -fanatics.

Sir, You truly have contributed to this discussion. My hat is off to You.

However Gore and Stern agree that it was ocean warming that produced Katrina in 2005

No they don't ... typical strawman argument ... yawn!

By Meyrick Kirby (not verified) on 05 Apr 2007 #permalink