Since the verdict in Mann v. Steyn, WUWT , Climate Depot and Climate Etc. have hosted thousands of anonymous comments adducing the view that as 97% of contrarians think Steyn better informed than Mann they must be as well.
Readers are invited to score the amateur peer review process at Climate, Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/03/01/ipccs-new-hockey-stick-temperature-graph/#comments
and WUWT as the discussion progresses, using the invaluable quantitative methodology developed by Professor John Baez of the University of California just before the hockey stick's Nature debut:
A simple method for quantitatively rating potential contributions to science:
To score each comment , add as you read:
- A minus 5 point starting credit.
- 1 point for every statement widely seen to be false.
- 2 points for every clearly vacuous statement.
- 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
- 5 points for each such statement adhered to despite careful correction.
- 5 points for each thought experiment contradicting a real one.
- 5 points for each word in all capital letters,
- 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
- 10 points for pointing out that you have an undergrad degree.
- 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
- 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves or finds any flaws in your theory.
- 10 points for each acronym you invent or misspelling you report in item 8.
- 10 points for asserting your theory is sound and just needs equations.
- 10 points for claiming that your work is a "paradigm shift".
- 20 points for complaining an index like this "suppresses original thinkers"
- 20 points for pointing to (insert name of Nova or National Geographic science episode here .)
- 20 points for every use of anecdote or myth as fact.
- 20 points for naming an equation after yourself.
- 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
- 20 points for each use of "libtard" or "reactionary racist."
- 30 points for claiming that your theory must be approbated by extraterrestrial civilizations
- 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, Maoists or the KGB.
- 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to suppress your work.
- 40 points for suggesting a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case.
- 50 points for claiming to have a revolutionary theory without testable predictions.
Updated from Original list © 1998 John Baez
