Klimazwiebel is on my reader list, but I don't usually bother with the comments. It looks a bit like the septics are disappointed with him. And he with them: And, damn it, give your names, when making strong statements. When you have an opinion, then you should have also a name. Still, there are some good comments over there (Mike Hulme was there, though he had little to say when I looked).
Stoat
Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.
Profile
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary
Search
Recent Posts
- Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Grauniad hangwringing
- A testable prediction by a nutter
- Cold in Cambridge
- Chris Huhne
- Justice and Injustice
- Black to play
- RFS 9: Kill Hollywood
- Plan 8 from outer space
- I feel dirty
Recent Comments
- Phil Hays on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- David B. Benson on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Steve Bloom on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Doug Cotton on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- JBL on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Eli Rabett on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Hank Roberts on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Sesli Chat on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Martin Vermeer on Grauniad hangwringing
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- My personal blog
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
- My view on climate change (Bart)
- Science of Doom
- Timmy
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Do not trust the Torygraph, for it is Tory | Main | Comment 10k: the winner! »
von S getting tired of the ranters?
Category: climate communication
Posted on: February 2, 2010 5:55 PM, by William M. Connolley
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/130902
Comments
Hulme
One thing I hope this blog and others may promote is the eradication of simple pejorative 'labels' to denote people's views. The label sceptic is so imprecise and so pejorative that it is obscuring the constructive exchange of ideas.
Posted by: windansea | February 2, 2010 7:43 PM
Didn't know he (they?) had a blog. A little disappointed it's in English.
Posted by: carrot eater | February 2, 2010 8:43 PM
I can absolutely agree that people who post strong opinions on these blogs should be willing to do it under their own name.
[If that is a snark at Eli, it is only half fair; I know who he is, and so do many others. If you want to know, send him an email: it is very likely he will tell you -W]
Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg | February 3, 2010 12:12 AM
Your willingness to identify yourself publicly is likely to depend on personal experience--and your experience may epend on how popular your opinions are with the kind of people who make death threats who live near you and know how to find you.
Your results will vary accordingly. If you've never reached that particular experience, I commend it. It makes life bright and sparkly once it's happened. Trust me on this.
I know several people who don't use their names; the people I do know vouch for them, and that they have good reason not to identify themselves.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 3, 2010 12:52 AM
Ah, the request for names has been clarified over there:
-----------
Blogger Werner Krauss said...
... I only asked people to reveal their real names in cases of severe character assassination; you should also have the courage to sign with your name when you want to ruin someone's scientific reputation and career. ...
------
Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 3, 2010 1:00 AM
I don't interpret van Storch's comment about anonymity as being directed at sceptics in particular. A perusal of his blog shows that easily half of the anonymous comments come from proponents of the AGW theory.
On a related note, it seems that most of the sceptic bloggers write under their real names, whereas many on the AGW side prefer pseudonyms.
[Not sure about blogs. You know who I am, you know who RC are. On wiki, it is certainly the other way around. The septics are all anon -W]
Personally I don't think it matters much either way.
Posted by: Kevin Davis | February 3, 2010 1:02 AM
If a message comply with regulations and the blog comment policy, I don't see the point of demanding a name and a surname. It sounds like you say one thing or the other depending on who you are speaking to.
Posted by: Jesús | February 3, 2010 6:22 AM
So that's were you draw the border? Comparing climate scientists with stalinists is ok, because Werner Krauss gave his name? Oh, and because it was a polemic (!) comparison with Stalin? Oh, the stupidity...
Posted by: Joerg | February 3, 2010 6:39 AM
Pseudonyms have a long track record, from Voltaire and Molière, to George Eliot and Mary Westmacott, to Bono and the Edge. The name is unimportant. It's what people say and how they say it. And if what and how they say it requires legal recourse, then (on the Web) the owners of servers have a legal duty in most jurisdictions to reveal the source.
IMVHO, an attack on the pseudonymous for being that is but a thinly veiled ad hominem.
True anonymity I'm a bit more equivocal about, though; but only because it can be difficult to tell one Anon from another when it comes to replying.
Posted by: P. Lewis | February 3, 2010 7:29 AM
The anonymous, or rather pseudonymous, all have their reasons for remaining so, as do I.
If you're making well-reasoned arguments, it doesn't matter. You would not be ashamed to have your real name associated with those arguments, even if they were not popular ones. But if you are making insane rants and baseless attacks on somebody else's character, there is nothing well-reasoned about that. You shouldn't hide behind your anonymity to enable you to say such things.
Posted by: carrot eater | February 3, 2010 7:52 AM
Posting one's name does not authorize to call names. The pseudonym debate is as old as the Internet. Wait, no : it's as old as satire.
Posted by: willard | February 3, 2010 10:01 AM
Posting one's name doesn't justify baseless personal attacks, but do it anyway. What I'm after is the people who issue baseless attacks, but would not do so if they weren't anonymous.
Posted by: carrot eater | February 3, 2010 10:10 AM
How many of us are "on the clock", though? I think that is a player.
#.T. Hine
Posted by: thomas hine | February 3, 2010 10:25 AM
I am no scientist, just a concerned civilian. I am however, very much in the alarmed camp.
Why do I use pseudonyms, I guess because everybody else does. Although one actually identifies me far more precisely than my name, there are many Tony O'Briens in the world.
I think I understand why some professionals use pseudonyms. If they were to use their official names it would be much harder to be frivolous at times. While the blogs serve a very useful educational purpose, the authors also like to have a little fun.
Posted by: Tony O'Brien | February 3, 2010 10:25 AM
Its interesting to note that few prominent pseudonymous bloggers remain so for long. For example, the identities of Orac, Eli, and (to a lesser extent) Tamino aren't exactly huge secrets.
I am always intrigued by folks who write like they are very familiar with the field but have pseudonymous monikers. Gavin's Pussycat (and perhaps you, carrot eater) comes to mind.
Posted by: Zeke Hausfather | February 3, 2010 10:53 AM
I had a bad experience posting under my full name a long time ago. I don't really see any advantage to it unless you are interested in publishing or getting into the media in some way. It's not like if you post under "Bob McRoberts" people are going to suddenly listen to you: this is the internet.
Posted by: Boris | February 3, 2010 2:31 PM
"For example, the identities of Orac, Eli, and (to a lesser extent) Tamino aren't exactly huge secrets."
To those of you in the in crowd, maybe. I was always the last to be picked for playground games at school and now it seems I'll be the last to hear the goss about the identity of these bloggers.
[I used to collect them at one point, but then lost track. If you care, I get to know your IP address, so you're not as anon as you think, if you thought you were -W]
Posted by: Mark Hadfield | February 3, 2010 3:49 PM
Mark, see me behind the bicycle sheds at break. ;-)
Posted by: Gareth | February 3, 2010 5:15 PM
The only real difference between a name and anonymous on the internet is pronunciation. Sure, I could tell you my name is Benjamin D. Solitzol, but how would you know it's true and why would you care?
Posted by: pough | February 3, 2010 6:00 PM
Well, pough, I could probably find out a lot by Googling Benjamin D. Solitzol.
Now, if your name was Jeremy Smith, it wouldn't be much different from using pough. Probably less useful.
Posted by: Zeke Hausfather | February 4, 2010 12:15 PM
You might or you might not. I have no idea. It's not my name, just a name I made up. For kicks, though, I could start calling myself Nicolas Nierenberg or even Zeke Hausfather. My point is that even in those times that a real name is used, it might not be the real name of the person posting. That's why I think that giving so much weight to the illusion of a real name is foolish.
Posted by: pough | February 4, 2010 1:32 PM
Continuing on from pough: This is why I think it's only particularly important for somebody to post under their real name if they're actually somebody doing work within the field being discussed.
Everybody else is just an anybody. At most, hopefully they keep consistent names, for the purpose of a functioning conversation.
Posted by: carrot eater | February 4, 2010 2:11 PM