Indeed, it's worth examining why crackpot ideas, when they achieve some notoriety, tend to illicit an angry response from more educated people. Where does this come from? Are we afraid that nonscientists will edge out established scientists in the competition for societal resources, even though the benefits they offer prove to be negligible or negative? I'm not sure that's what it is, I don't see evidence that this is a real threat.

If the issue is that we are afraid such ideas tend to undermine or reverse the general level of scientific understanding and education in the larger population, then we should instead view it as a positive opportunity to instill more correct scientific thinking, something which is always difficult in its own right and maybe we should welcome any such new opening. I imagine a statement like: "science is not just a bunch of answers, it is a process for arriving at answers. No answer can be separated from the process that generated it, so let's look at the process you have used to generate these rather radical suggestions you have made. Let's start with experimental evidence that you might care to cite in support of your ideas." By shifting the focus from "who's right" to "who used a credible process", you have created an educational opportunity that bolsters the general understanding of science, rather than undermining it.