Upcoming Anonymous Poll on Anonymity

I find it easier to express negative views when I post anonymously.
People may feel able to express more confident views, no matter the POV of their statements, if those statements aren’t personally attributable to them. Though I’m not sure how you would craft this into a poll question.

Posting for relaxation – not “publication”.

I would say It’s a matter of symmetry. The poster does not know who reads the post and what he might do with it. Posting anonymously sort of levels the field. This isn’t exactly an invention of the internet era. Book writers have used pseudonyms for hundreds of years.

1) So they can say things that they would be embarrassed to say in person.
no one needs to worry about climate change because God promised Noah
2) So that brought comments can’t be traced back the the buyer.
a.k.a Koch Brothers

I am a journalist for a large newspaper publisher that runs a strongly pro-AGW editorial line and virtually forbids questioning of the science. One of the reasons, by my analysis, is that the company has experienced strong growth in online readership from young people (in my view brainwashed by the education system) and therefore runs a strong youth bias in its selection of editorial content. The company’s unwillingness to investigate the science runs counter to everything I was taught in journalism about the need for scepticism. If I was to make known my conclusion (after a year of my own investigation) that AGW science doesn’t work, I have no doubt I would be fired, even though I work in an unrelated area. I run the above obfuscuated email address for the purpose of commenting on the science and politics of AGW.

My option:
– It is just a culture thing.
Let me elaborate on this: When I was very young it was typical to “take” a name when playing computer games on lans and whatnot. This was not for anonymity, (everyone you played with knew who was behind the pseudonym), but rather more like taking a second name in the computer realm. For me this carried over into any discussion sites I used when discussing politics, philosophy etc.
Again, on the discussion sites anonymity did not really factor into it. I typically included a link to my personal homepage in any created profile (which would include not only name, but my exact residential adress and phone number and…) so anyone that really wanted to find out was about 2-3 clicks away from knowing.
Currently, signing under my pseudonym is what comes naturally, and for any quick posts I dont really care either way if people know who I am. So filling in any extra identifying info is “extra work” for any sites one does not post alot on.
Currently I will sign under real name if I happen to care extra for people knowing who I am, but the default behaviour is I don’t care extra so pseudonym it is.
I think this is age related. Those who grew up before the advent of computer gaming seem to consider the discussion under pseudonym as somehow suspect, while the younger generation pretty much takes it for granted and doesn’t really reflect much on it.

I have an unusual name and I believe there is only one other person on the internet with the same name and he is easily distinguishable from me by his location and interests. People with common names are able to post using their real names yet still be relatively anonymous. If you are called John Smith, you can post without anyone being able to search for your name and aggregate everything you’ve posted.
The reason I don’t use my real name is that I know one person who constantly Googles my name to see what I’ve been doing. It’s his right and the information is on the internet but I’d like to engage in some conversations without inviting him along.
Also, the things I post have varying levels of significance for me in terms of the strength of my views, the consideration I’ve given to them, whether I’m being flippant, whether I’m playing devil’s advocate etc. This level of significance is lost when they appear under a Google search of my name. I have no control that what I’m proudest of will come at the top of the list.
Finally, some people on the net are immersed in a single subject. For example, the climate science bloggers. I don’t know if Anthony, Steve, Willis etc. post on any other subjects but it seems unlikely they would have the time :). All that is known about them publicly are their views on climate science. I, on the other hand, post on climate issues, music, politics, education etc. If I was in a real conversation with friends or acquaintances about any of those subjects, I would not expect my views on one of them to have any bearing on the others. With the internet, the only way to compartmentalise things is to have them anonymous.

I’m concerned about putting any personal information about myself on the web for any reason.

When I post things on the net I use a completely neutral pseudonym just to get the focus on the content and not on who I am. Age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, etc are factors that can affect the people who read a comment and many of them unfortunately then respond in a biased way and the discussion moves from content to person.

Originally I needed anonymity because I had been attacked for my views and work (elsewhere) and suffered several years’ illness as a result. Curiously, I chose the name before I was in the least interested in Climate Science, assuming everything was hunky dory. But when I came to realize the scale of the corruption in Climate Science, it spoke to me to take up cudgels, and I realized I could use that same illness as free time to study and write it all up. I reckoned with Anthony here I would need to earn the right to use the name I chose! I always give my “real” name in private correspondence but I like my online name, anyway it’s simpler to just have one “handle”.

I write anonymously because it appears very easy to upset some people, and I have found many of them to be quite strange. I certainly wouldn’t want people to know my real name in case they actually went to the trouble of discovering my address. We have a saying here in England (Yorkshire-based) which goes, “There’s nowt so queer as folk”. In case it’s not a dead-giveaway to our American friends, it means that there’s nothing as odd as people.
I came to realise many years ago that we’re all mentally disturbed, it’s just by degrees. I have upset some people with what I have written in the past, so keeping myself anonymous is essential.

Sorry Willis – “this thread is not to debate anonymity” – missed that, but you’re going to get that debate anyway I expect.
BTW I loved reading your story – could identify with a lot of it myself.

The Internet is a very big place and you would think that posting a comment on a blog would be noticed by only those reading the blog and be rather ephemeral. However, comments in blogs are grist for search engines such a Google and your comments will turn up ANY time ANYone Googles your name for ANY reason. (Well they do for a name like mine that appears to be rather unusual.) This may not be comfortable for many people who may not wish their thoughts and comments from years gone by to turn up whenever someone does a search on them.

I simply enjoy putting forward an identity that says more about me than my name.

I am not posting anonymously, I am using a pseudonym. I use the same one each time on each blog I comment on, for consistency, but I do not want to argue with someone here who has seen a comment I might have made on a political or current affairs blog and proceeds to make tiresome assumptions. It helps keep on topic and to the point.

“At this point you’re just an anonymous nobody on the internet”. Yup, that’s me Willis :). If my name was Watt, Mann or Hansen then who I was would be important. As I’m not then no one is going to care about me as an individual – so long as my ‘name’ is consistently recognisable.
The main objection is the likes of Google and the army of spammers and fraudsters out there. What’s to stop an organisation, legal or otherwise, consolidating people’s posts from multiple sites into a kind of non-cooperative facebook? If my name was John Smith I wouldn’t worry too much but it’s an uncommon name and would be easy to connect up my posts, email address and ultimately my credit cards. Spam and fraud would then follow.

There is another substantial reason in the UK why both blog admin and blog commenters should favor anonymity. That is the current state of defamation law.
Debate online often becomes robust. No more so than in a discussion or in a pub, but the difference is that the ill considered remarks are permanently archived on line, disseminated around the world, and in the UK at the moment, each reading is counted legally as publication, and the amount of potential damages for defamation is a function of the number of times its been published.
The best advice to people running a blog in the UK is to bar from commenting everyone who insists on using their real name, and to require a pseudonym for all commenters.
If you do not do this as admin you may start to get threatening letters from people who commented aggressively and then decided they could not stand the heat when they got replied to. You risk being held to be a publisher of the comments, and you will get demands that the replies be taken down and apologies issued….
Insist on anonymity and a lot of this goes away. You cannot slander or libel a person who is not identified, since their reputation cannot be injured if they are anonymous themselves. You can insult them, but again, if non-one knows who is being consulted, how bad can that be? Don’t insist on anonymity, and you will end up screening every comment, which in turn makes you liable as a publisher….
Posts are a different matter. Your posts or guest posts you would expect to take responsibility for and screen.

I would like to see the poll broken down not only by country, but also on state in the USA and Canada, because your states are comparable to the European countries. You might be able to show variations in perceived pressure against revealing who you are then.
I myself live in a so-called democracy where the politicians are far more gullible than in the USA and therefore prone to all kinds of new belief systems, and thus large state-owned companies of which I am employed in one, have departments where they state company policy including the company stance on global warming and climate crisis. Speaking out against your company policy is not a criminal offense per se, but your loyalty is questioned and you are kept under observation until the company’s human resource department can find anything to attach to your file with a view to get you fired.
I once was a research scientist at the largest research institute in this country, and it was only my being very famous among the public (for something completely different) that kept me from being fired many years ago, as I unwittingly came to be quoted in the local newspaper speaking my opinion about some very high-up politician’s total lack of understanding of some technological question. Needless to say I quit shortly afterwards, being disgusted with the whole spit-licking of the leaders. Time showed that I was correct in everything and I got to know in secret that the politician would never be elected to a high office again, thanks to the revealed stupidity. But the irrational behaviour of the research company’s official spokespersons writing in the newspaper even without contacting me so that they could get to know what had really happened, scared me forever.
So – the conclusion is, it is scary to write even on this blog signing your full name if you are from my country, unless you can avoid being targeted by the consensus people. And – to paraphrase another posting a year ago or so – they are many and we are few.

I am very careful about who can contact me; due to unfortunate incidents in the past, I am not inclined to trust the entire world. Anthony and others who run blogs have my only and genuine email address and that’s as far as I am prepared to reveal myself.
It may sound a tad paranoid and that may very well be true, but my reasons are valid for me.

Mostly so i can more easily find myself in discussions. I have a very very common name so i use this pseudo, it stands out more.
Secondly i’m hesitant to leave a reallife trail for eventual governmental stalkers to put me in their database. It’s also the reason why i use an L2TP/IPSec SSL tunnel. I hate being in databases.

What other questions (age, sex, etc.) would it be useful to know?

” Would you seriously consider using your real name after a reasonable period of retirement.”
“Do you feel frustrated that circumstances prevent you from using your real name.” (both questions would produce interesting answers)
This is a thoughtful topic, Willis.
This site is a conversation, but open to anyone, so it is not a private group conversation but a very public one and I can understand anonymity when work or relationships are involved.
Personal names are neutral, so, I guess, are numbers, but replying to a name linked to the Black Plague is difficult, and some are almost Freudian in revealing the ‘inner’ person.
The persons sex would be interesting, females seem to have a natural, easy approach that softens the earnestness somewhat and it would be interesting to know their contribution by numbers.
The follow up to this will be interesting.

PS – Please be clear that I’m interested in possible reasons people might post anonymously on WUWT

– People may avoid what you have to say and attack your personal life, lifestyle, religious beliefs etc. It’s not about me
– A working climate scientist who is a closet sceptic and worries about funding implications.
– A working scientist who is a closet sceptic and worries about funding implications.

Add career, age, sex

I am retired, and don’t care if people read what I post. Nobody will care much about what I would say anyway, so I feel free to say it.

I’ve been using the same pseudonym almost exclusively for more than 15 years; it seems more natural than my real name 🙂
Although there maybe other people using the same nickname (though I haven’t met one), it’s very easy to find out my real name, should anyone wish to do so. So I don’t consider myself to be “anonymous”.
Having said that, I would have no problem at all using my real name at a place like WUWT, if that was required.
(In fact, as I’m writing this I’m not sure whether I do use my sig or my real name 🙂 )

Using your real name may lead to attacks on SOMEONE ELSE with the same name as yours.
By the way I just Googled “Anthony Watts” and got wuwt as well as a news story that reads:

“Anthony Watts pleads not guilty to assaulting his girlfriend”
The Roosters NRL player yesterday pleaded not guilty in Waverley Local Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm following an alleged attack on Shannon Kiss at the weekend.

I also got Professor Anthony Watts who teaches at Oxford. His full contact details are there and you can imagine the kind of emails he gets even though he may or may not be a global warming sceptic.
Can you see the problem????

In the UK you very quickly learn that divulging your identity to anyone is likely to make you the target of spammers etc, or anyone who thinks they can make a bit of money out of you.
Except for trolling, I don’t see anonymity on blogs as being a bad thing – after all, one is supposed to argue the topic, not the person.

The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley said
“We have a saying here in England (Yorkshire-based) which goes, “There’s nowt so queer as folk”. In case it’s not a dead-giveaway to our American friends, it means that there’s nothing as odd as people.
I came to realise many years ago that we’re all mentally disturbed, it’s just by degrees. I have upset some people with what I have written in the past, so keeping myself anonymous is essential.”
——-
I’m a Yorkshire Lass, too. Big Jim’s statement above describes my own reasons for anonymity perfectly.
(However, when contributing to tip jars, which I do pretty often, I’m perfectly happy to take the credit with my “realname” email address!
!

Two reasons:
1. Its traditional with me. I’ve used the name “Allen” for all computer activity — since the days of the TSS360 300bit/sec terminals in the 1960s.
2. Security. I do not want complete strangers to know how to get into physical contact with me.
As to my qualifications to have opinions regarding science and engineering topics: I am extremely qualified. However, as a post above mentions, people should respond to the “idea” expressed in a post — not who is expressing it.

If AGW is abandoned as false then this thread will prove to be very instructive for historians examining the phenomenon of AGW hysteria and why it took such a hold. Print out and archive.

A useful addition to this conversation is that several responders to this blog work in Australia where AGW politics are out of control and fear of identification is strong unless you support the current political fashion. Dissidents have legitimate reason to expect a career shortening, even though dissidents are 60%+ of the population, according to the most recent opinion polls. A government is about to fall as a result of its advocacy of a tax on carbon dioxide. There are parallels in history, such as the last days of the Weimar Republic …

You talkin’ to me?

Ah but how do we know if it’s your real name? Apart from a number of fairly well known folk the rest of us are not up there with the good and mightly.
Personally I will carry on using the tag I’ve had for many, many years, a lot of folk who know me know me by it and I’m just too lazy to change it now. Besides some of my friends are way to easy to confuse, it’s an age thing.

I’ve got a split personality when posting on blogs.
On those dealing with science/climate questions, like this one and others, e.g. bishophill or CA or indeed here, I use my name because I’m retired and couldn’t care less what other people think of my attitude in regard to AGW.
I also believe that using one’s own name prevents one from posting facetious comments, as well as forcing one to marshal one’s thoughts.
On all other blogs, political or newspaper ones, I use various nics so as to avoid being stalked, and so as to be able to deck verbally those who diss me, without needing to fear a personal attack going beyond the blog.
I think that for many who are posting here at WUWT, anonymity is a requirement to safeguard their jobs/positions. That is sadly the way things are at the moment, and relates to the way younger members of staff in academe are fearful of losing job and or funding, should they speak out.
I wish fervently that those who runs such departments could be forced to retire early – a climate of fear which restricts free speech is unhealthy not just for democracies but also and especially for science.

Many of the above, bearing in mind that many of us post on different topics on different sites and media outlets. Someone’s history of posting on climate change can be harmful to them, for others it can involve speaking out in favour of the fur industry (even on narrowly defined points), immigration questions, culture issues and others can lead to consequences with many of the above listed parties (colleagues, clients, family, friends etc).
Some of us are seeking to better ourselves before adopting official positions. Additionally there’s the ‘ad hom’ aspect, that echoes the effect of the likes of desmogblog that is used against people. I don’t wish to be judged repeatedly and forever in stupid drive-by shots from people who resent that I once knew less (as we all can) and sought to learn more and asked the silly questions in order to clear the air between my ears and be a more learned and understanding person.
In Canada many of these topics favour the mask, and it’s not that the wearers simply love masks. Openly commenting on topics such as immigration and integration/accomadation, the seal hunt and various other topics have lead to people being threatened. We’ve been hearing about seal hunters facing similar campaigns of telephone and online harassement, threats to the person and families of persons for years based on opinions held.
They don’t call them enviro-whackos for nothing.
For example, your analogy Willis, in the discussion on the law investigating Michael Mann you once offered. In Canada to suggest not to go the route of the law and to suggest (or even allude to) the code of the west and shootouts at high noon, would likely see one’s house ransacked, technology seised and parsed through and possibly months or years of deliberation on whether or not you were inciting people to take the law into their own hands and kill people.
This would be nearly as dangerous of kicking the beesnests within certain urban Sikh or Islamic communities, where intimidation is nothing new and in the Sikh case has seen at least one journalist, that I’m aware of, killed in British Columbia.
“British Columbia.
Police know who killed journalist: son
Police have known for years who is behind the slaying of journalist Tara Singh Hayer, his son told a memorial service yesterday in Surrey, B.C. But because of a fractured judicial system, charges have yet to be laid in the only assassination of a journalist in Canada…”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c85d8663-2330-4d30-8e5d-29ca1793c79d
—
Also there was the brutal beating of former BC Premiere and federal Cabinet Minister Ujjal Dosanjh for calling for peace.
“Former B.C. premier haunted by memories of 1985 beating
22 Nov 2007 … That’s one of the lingering effects of a vicious beating 22 years ago by Sikh extremists upset at his public pleas for peace, Dosanjh told …”
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=6746eb63-3769-4926-a3fd-8c49b60c6ebe
I’d rather learn my topics in discussions like these here at WUWT and other forums before I write anything that I feel is worth easily hunting me down and killing me or dragging me off to years of court and being painted according the stereotyping of people going on.
You speak to wild west and I say there’s a dead journalist on the left -err, west coast and the law has its hands tied. Didn’t Zorro and the Lone Ranger wear their masks because of things like this? Here’s hoping the law prevails and not the law of the jungle.
This is a great topic Willis and thank you for putting it out there. No one of us can speak to all of it and all of us together will miss most of the best reasons and examples but its importance cannot be underestimated.
Noteworthy, our democratic votes are a ‘secret ballot’ these things have their place, and are arguably necessary in societies that strive to be free.

Willis,
Interesting question–I certainly have several reasons for posting anonymously, although of course I have no illusions about how easy it would be for someone to figure out who I am if they cared enough.
One reason that seemed to be alluded to but didn’t come up explicitly is this: this is a very informal debate for some of us. Since it is a blog and not a formal paper or document, we want to be able to put our thoughts out there without having to be 100% precise. That generates discussion and lets us try on ideas. If we post under a pseudonym, it provides light cover should we say something poorly.
The pub debate had been mentioned before. How many times have you had a chat with someone named “Bill” or “Ed” and not known or cared what their full name is? Probably plenty. Using a pseudonym on a moderated blog is a similar level of formality, in my opinion.

Thanks Willis. It’s interesting to read the comments here. Reasons for posting anonymously seem to be divided along lines of age, region and occupation. It seems that typically the commenter who has most to fear from revealing her / his identity is a young Australian scientist or journalist. Conversely, if you are older, retired, American or working in private industry, you don’t have as much to lose.
I’m none of those, but like commenter ‘Anonymous’, I occasionally post on a range of topics that upset people with strong political views on the left and right. Any other site or forum, I use my real name as a rule, but it still bothers me that it would be very easy for somebody to correlate all my posts to get a fairly detailed picture of my unrelated views and beliefs, and use them against me ‘ad hom’ style in AGW related topics. Just googling the names of leading AGW sceptics (rational, decent and polite individuals, including yourself), you can immediately find a wealth of co-ordinated hate, lies and smear on the Internet. I have no doubt that this is conducted by a minority activist fringe of the AGW camp, but it is unsettling and upsetting nonetheless. Even outside this fringe, people have said worrying things about sceptics, even our own (in the UK) leader of the opposition. So there is a certain amount of reasonable paranoia in concealing my identity. I do try and make it a rule here that if I am arguing with another poster who has used his / her real name, I will sign off in kind as a courtesy.
Keep up the good work!
J Burns

My name is linked to my blog, I do not care. I am proud to be an active member of WUWT discussions.

I use this pseudo on the Internet since so long I don’t remember precisely when I started (in the 90s) using it.
To the point, I have no specific reason to post with a pseudo (minus the historical one), but also see no reason to post with my real name either. Who care what’s your real name/pseudo if you have sound arguments, new scientific data to present, clear ideas, logical approaches, and/or interesting perspectives to propose? Willis Eschenbach might be named Wolfgang Emadeus, the substance of his writings will be the same.

Tom is my real first name but if you were to Google my full name you will come up with a couple of real estate agents in different parts of the country, a scientist and, most importantly, a man with a long criminal record, none of whom are me. I use “in Florida” because at one time there were a couple of other “Tom”s posting and I wanted to differentiate myself from them.

I feel I have to balance the desire to have public ownership of my ideas against several of the factors stated above. I do this by using an anonymous moniker, but disclosing my name to the blog owner within my e-mail address.

It’s usually a good idea to follow local customs i.e. when in Rome do as the Romans do. Given that most people are anonymous here herd mentality then dictates that you too should be anonymous. For me, I tend to eschew the customary. A rebel need not always have a cause.

There is considerable relevant research into uses of anonymity in “computer supported group processes”. For anyone who is really interested I recommend :
A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER-SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING by Poppy Lauretta McLeod at Case Western Reserve as a good starting place .http://www.csl.mtu.edu/cs6461/www/Reading/McLeod97.pdf

Jimbo says:
April 24, 2011 at 2:36 am
Using your real name may lead to attacks on SOMEONE ELSE with the same name as yours.
By the way I just Googled “Anthony Watts” and got wuwt as well as a news story that reads:

“Anthony Watts pleads not guilty to assaulting his girlfriend”
The Roosters NRL player yesterday pleaded not guilty in Waverley Local Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm following an alleged attack on Shannon Kiss at the weekend.

I also got Professor Anthony Watts who teaches at Oxford. His full contact details are there and you can imagine the kind of emails he gets even though he may or may not be a global warming sceptic.
Can you see the problem????

Yes I see the problem!
We now need to ask the proverbial question: Does Anthony still beat his wife?
LOL

I started posting on climate sites with my own name as a matter of clarity and honesty. A screen name felt like hiding behind a false front and I’ve never cared if anyone disagrees with me.
The down side has been that my name has been harvested from WUWT and Google will find instances of me giving good reviews of products on sites with virus threats. I’m still the only Maurice Garoutte known to Google but I post less now because my (formally) good name will lead to a computer threat. Also it doesn’t help that the USPTO puts my name and address on the web, accessible to the casual searcher.

I’m posting from a country which discourages freedom of speech.
Germany. ‘Nuff said.

A nutter has several times offered a reward for my identiy.

The internet allows for cool nicknames and alter-egos. Not everyone’s email address is “yourname@____.com,” and too many people share names for that to realistically happen. You get to make a new identity.
What’s most interesting is the identity some folks choose, such as “Tamino.” Sort of like how music folks liked to turn themselves into heroes in the short stories that often were music videos (back when MTV played them), you have someone who decides to liken himself to one.

I don’t mind using my real name here (Lance Boil) but would never do so elsewhere due to the fear of becoming entangled with and harassed by malignant trolls.

My professional career ( not in climate science ) was destroyed by the “tyranny of the majority.” “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
I no longer trust the judgment, fairness or justice supplied by lynch mobs.

I’m concerned that putting my real name to my ideas will cause me trouble at my work.
I’m concerned that someone will take violent exception to my views about climate and threaten me or my family.
I’m concerned about putting any personal information about myself on the web for any reason .
I have been attacked for my views.
———–
In truth, my posting moniker is half of my name.
My full name is shared by two other people in the continental US .
Not only am I easily identified, but these others ( one in particular) could be damaged.
I have been targeted spammed and hassled on line,
by lunatics .
And yes I think that potential employers google people,
and take exception to their views and activities, that can be detrimental to getting hired .
I do not care to be tracked and researched for posting in forums.
There are many usenet postings under my full name, including some offensive ones directed at offensive people, and they never disappear.
But I respect you Willis, even admire.
Try not to think less of me.

I plan to run for president and want to be able to change my opinions as may be convenient.
…..actually I think there may be repercussions to me and my views in the future, at this time I do not feel any threat but that doesn’t mean the warmist and political hate list isn’t being tabulated. The gulag is not in the top ten vacation destinations for me.
I am thinking the climategate emailers were wishing they were more careful.

Willis
I have worked for oil companies or other “eco-criminals” (miners, agribusiness) and it would likely be held against me.
I think the “eco-criminals” label is going to bias responses as it will cause a reaction. A more neutral question would be:
I have worked for oil companies, mining companies or agribusiness and it would likely be held against me.

I float tentative ideas in blogs, ideas that I’m not yet sure about. Blogs offer an opportunity for crowd-sourced criticism before having my name attached to a bad idea. Ideas surviving the blog test are ideas I feel more confident to put into serious publications. However, my blog name is not such an inscrutable or cryptic pseudonym: just my real first name and the initial of my surname.

I taught my chilren never to reveal their identity or location over the internet. I promised them that I would do the same. There are too many nut cases out there, and it is much easier for them to locate you if you give a real name.
Rather than having to give lots of other false information and make up stories, the pseudonym is the closest thing to a firewall I can think of.
Privacy is something that has value and is best protected, unless you are in the media business, politics and such and you need the attention of the masses.
I doubt that most kids today who frequent these open social networks realize how thier posts are likely to be a burden for them in the future. You can change your setting to private, but there is always the wayback machine. It’s out there for life.

Interesting question. If I write something, I’ll stand for it, or I would not write it.

I am saying something that is likely to be stupid and don’t want it tied to me for the rest of my life.
The real reason is,
1) I know future employers/others will Google me and there’s a good likelihood they hate skeptics (I work in acedemia), and don’t want this to be held against me.
2) I don’t care enough that the added validity would be worth attaching my name to my statement.

My wife is terrified that I will make an inadvertent remark about muslin and some member of our family will be terrorized. I am worried that the D*p*rtm*nt of Houseland S#c#r#ty searches for anyone who might cast doubt on muslin.

Why do I post under my name? I say what I mean and am terribly honest at it, especially since I can’t lie with a straight face. I want folks to know that “I” said it, regardless of whether it was smart or stupid, not someone named snigglefrits. I wear who I am, with all the good and bad of who I am, visible and easily discerned. The consequences be damned. So much so that if Bill Clinton had my personality, he would have said, “Yes I did.” before the inquiring mind had finished the question.

I post under a variety of different noms de plume. Keep everyone guessing 😉

Yes, to all of the above.
Also a clever nom de plume (or nom de guerre?) demonstrates just how clever the writer can be.
I formerly used my nom de guerre for identification.
(One of my hobbies is Cowboy Action Shooting . You choose a “Cowboy” name, get dressed up like an 1880s cowboy and have shooting competition with period firearms. Cool, jsut like you were 13 years old, again. Only this time, the guns are real!)
Then Anthony wrote that he had little sympathy for those that wouldn’t identify themselves. So, I started to include my real name also. This IS Anthont’s blog.
But….. There is also a philosophical reason for using my real name. Some seven or eight years ago I came to realize that there is an actual war going on in this country. A cultural war, perhaps, but it is still a war with real casualties. For example, denying the poor people in Africa the technology to deal with malaria costs them about 1,000,000 lives a year. 1,000,000 mostly poor, mostly black, and mostly children and pregnant women. The casualties due to just that issue have been on the order of those lost in a World War. (Malaria has been a subject on this blog if you would care to look it up.)
So…….in the “culture” that is mine, a person of worth will stand up for what is right and against what is wrong. Using an alias is a very minor thing, but it would be cowardly for me to hide behind one. The slow painful deaths of about 30,000,000 poor black people somehow require `it of me.
I must admit that I am retired, so I don’t have much at risk by using my real name. I do understand the risk to others that may be employed at “liberal” organizations. “Liberals” are vicious and vindictive and there is a real threat if they have power over you.
Back when the Democrats controlled Texas, voters were required to sign the backs of their “secret” ballots. If you voted “wrong”, you or your father, uncle, etc. could be fired if they had a County job. This is not a joke and it is not made up.
It really is a war.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

I regularly post comments at about a half dozen sites. I starting using the abbreviated “Dr. Dave” to prevent fallout from the ultra-liberal, government-funded organization I worked for at the time. I continue to use “Dr. Dave” for consistency. I’m the same “Dr. Dave” you see at PJM or American Thinker or any one of a number of other sites.

I used to write letters to the local paper where one has to use your real name. One day a semi intelligent moron did not like my response to an editorial, story short police involved. I am also employed with a power utility, my views don’t match their politically driven ones about C02, windgenerators etc, thus I prefer anonymous.

No upside and only a possible great big downside. Security’s the name of the game today and people only read something written only if they want to know and learn through time whether they can generally trust and its worth considering the thoughts anyway. I hate authority of any form, it’s really all about content and commonsense in the words.
What’s the upside but ego? I agree with Beesaman and Dave above, would me using two names such as “Mark Twain” be better? It’s just a sequence of letters and “Willis Eschenbach” may just be a pen name for all I know, really, how would I ever know. Same for all of the other names above in any post on any blog. At least my signin is half true though half missing. ☺

I’m not too concerned about fallout at my present job. But I could see it affecting future employment searches.

If you do the survey, please allow respondents to cite multiple reasons, because several of those listed apply in my case.
As an additional reason: I wouldn’t discuss politics with colleagues/customers/clients, unless I know they are also good friends. I would advise most people not to do that either: in my industry, it is close to unprofessional to do so. If I posted under my own name, it would be tantamount to expressing my political views to all and sundry and would convey a lack of professionalism.

I’ll lose 90% of my friends if they ever find out what I truly think about the Holy Global Warming.

I do ocassionally use my real name (as above) but often like to use silly pseudonymns because…well, that’s just the way I am….
I generally never court vicious or hateful controversy in any case and am able to be reasoned with better than many I feel…..
Just my view.

In my current professional position, it would be uncomfortable for me to be known as a global warming skeptic. That’s why I don’t use my full name on WUWT.

Another suggestion for the poll:
You don’t provide any option to allow a user to edit or remove a comment.
If someone posts with a typo or error of grammar (or even meaning) his clumsiness/stupidity will forever after be visible. Personally I don’t want to have to check every word I post on every blog as if it will follow me around for the next 50 years. I’m not writing academic theses… they’re blog posts.

“I feel able to express more confident views if those statements aren’t personally attributable to me.”
This is interesting to me as suggesting a higher level of confidence that what is warranted has not stopped the IPCC from suggesting high levels of accuracy.
John M Reynolds

Who is Steve Goddard and what happened to him?

Willis? Can I call ya Willis? I don’t actually post anonymously. Many, many people out in the world know who 2hotel9 is. Some of them even like me!
As for the purpose of this thread, I have to agree with many of the comments above, you should structure your poll so that respondents may pick more than one answer. Different circumstances and situations call for anonymity. With the widespread incidents of identity theft many people are choosing anonymity in their online activities. In political blogging/commenting anonymity is much more common due to the viscous nature of Progressivism and its adherents, and it is a rather double edged blade, often used in what is termed “sockpuppet” posting. Another common tactic from that political quarter is hijacking a person’s name and commenting as them, often in derogatory ways meant to harm that person in their professional or family lives.
This is a rather complicated issue, really, and I can’t wait to see your poll results. Oh, well, guess I do have to wait, don’t I.

I work with a bunch(90%) lefty’s. They believe Albert Gore is a scientist, and his word is the gospel truth. They talk about visiting WUWT, Real Science, Ice Age Now and others. These so called smart people joke about the postings and comments. Last July 30th when the supervisor pointed out how some of the trees around the plant had leaves turning color earlier than normal these clowns called him just about everything but African American,they received a three day holiday with out pay. Now a days I keep my mouth shut and post to relive the frustration. Thank goodness for spell check.

In general, I think it is cowardice. Though I can identify with concerns about work, or protecting my family from attack. Look at the threats the “Civil” Left made against Republican senators and their families in Wisconsin. But not giving their names allows cowards to make vicious attacks and use foul language with impunity. So I tend to sign my posts with my name and blog address.
Robert A. Hall
http://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com

I use the name I’ve gone by since high school – Hank – which is a contraction of my last name (first three letters followed by the last). Most of my friends and peers wouldn’t recognize me if I were to use my given first name so, in a sense, I am using my real name that everyone knows me by.
I am a leading journal published medical researcher with a keen interest in research study design. I remain under impressed that many AGW studies lack proper methodologies and the conclusions derived from said studies are borderline delusional. It seems many studies are designed to impress bureaucrats to send more money with little real content beyond wild a** guessing. Skepticism is a welcomed virtue in my field as it promotes honesty and transparency. Climate research doesn’t appear to appreciate such values but I digress.
I’m confident enough in who I am to not be concerned about what others think of my opinions. I don’t fear professional retribution as most of my peers hold similar views to mine or are just plain disengaged from the topic of global warming. Since my work is not publicly funded or grant funded, I’m at liberty to say what I wish without concern of loosing my job. I have no concern about people reading my opinions a decade from now. I feel free to change my opinion should I have reason to and will defend or dismiss my former opinions accordingly. At the end of the day, I want to know the truth and see no wrong in seeking it by testing what is offered as truth with skepticism. If it passes the test, I’ll receive it. If not, I reject it. Presently, I reject the unfalsifiable theory of AGW which, with glaring religiosity, bends even contradiction into proof and conveniently disappears things it finds inconvenient.

I, too, use my initials as you can see from my email address. I use them outside of the web and on the job whenever practical as well. It’s my preferred identity. Some people see this as an attempt at anonymity. However, from my IP, you can gather a lot more information about me than I can about you. Very specific information in fact. Information I’d rather not have disseminated thank-you-very-much. I value my privacy. It’s becoming a rapidly scarce commodity. Why should the process be helped?
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 24, 2011 at 12:35 am
“Get over it”? What makes you think I care in the slightest either way if you use your initials? At this point you’re just an anonymous nobody on the internet, why should anyone care if you use your initials or your Grandma’s maiden name? …Nobody cares.
If you don’t care as you stated in your reply to dp then why this poll and blog post? Idle hands and all that? The people usually asking your questions often seem to have some problem they need to get over. I, too, wonder at why people ask these questions. Why DID you feel the need to ask — if you don’t really care about the answer, that is?
There are ways to avoid giving away too much that but they are genuine bother to use. I hope my trust in your and this blog’s discretion hasn’t been misplaced.

* I’m concerned that putting my real name to my ideas will cause me trouble at my work. (True)
* I’m concerned that putting my real name to my ideas will cause me trouble at home or with my family. (False)
* I’m concerned that putting my real name to my ideas will cause me trouble with my friends and acquaintances. (False)
* I’m concerned that putting my real name to my ideas will cause me trouble at my school or university.(False)
* I’m posting from a country which discourages freedom of speech.(False)
* I’m concerned that someone will take violent exception to my views about climate and threaten me or my family.(True)
* I feel more comfortable posting anonymously, but I’m not sure why.(False)
* I’m concerned about putting any personal information about myself on the web for any reason.(True)
* I find it easier to express negative views when I post anonymously.(False)
* I’m posting from work on company time, or the equivalent (e.g. posting when I’m supposed to be studying).(False)
* I don’t want people to be able to research my previous statements.(False) (I use the same name and even link to my blog)
* I feel able to express more confident views if those statements aren’t personally attributable to me.(False)
* I’m posting for relaxation – not “publication”.(Truish)
* Using my real name is just asking for ad hominem attacks.(True)
* I don’t know who might read the post and what they might do with it.(True)
* I don’t wish to disclose my formal qualifications, or lack of them, or that I am in a different field.(False)
* I can say things that I would be embarrassed to say in person.(False)
* I’m lazy.(True, but not the reason)
* I work with clients/customers or in a market where skeptical views are not welcome.(False)
* It’s a chance to let out my repressed wild and crazy inner personalities.(False)
* I have someone constantly Googling my name.(True)
* It allows me to “compartmentalize” my opinions on very different subjects.(False)
* I have worked for oil companies or other “eco-criminals” (miners, agribusiness) and it would likely be held against me.(False)
* I am concerned that my age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, etc are factors that can affect the people who read a comment and many of them unfortunately then respond in a biased way.(False)
* I have been attacked for my views.(False)
* I don’t wish for my thoughts and comments from years gone by to turn up whenever someone does a search on my name.(True, goes back to employment)
* I enjoy putting forward an identity that says more about me than my name.(False)
* It’s good that no-one on the internet knows if you’re a frog.(False)
* It would be easy to connect up my posts, email address and ultimately my credit cards. Spam and fraud would then follow.(False)
* I don’t want to be associated with my job when posting on technical subjects.(True)
* I am concerned about the UK defamation law.(False)
* In my country you could be targeted by the consensus people.(True)
* I have a common name and use a pseudonym so that I can search for my postings.(False)
* I am concerned it may cost me business/lose me funding.(False)
* Would you seriously consider using your real name after a reasonable period of retirement.(yes)
* Would you prefer to be able to post under your own name? (No)
* Career (No)
* Age (No)
* Sex (No)
* Location (No)
* I want to be able to claim ownership of my ideas. (True)
* I refuse to be intimidated by the dangers of the world. (People are crazy out there, what about if they attack your children?)
* I am much better mannered when I have to take responsibility for my words. (False)
* My claims tend to extravagance when I post anonymously. (False)
* I grew up a cowboy, and criticizing someone from behind a mask of anonymity feels like shooting someone from ambush … and a cowboy can’t do that, it’s in the contract, ask Tom Mix. (False)
The reality is that conservatives are not nuts and crazies, and for the most part do things through proper and standard process. This is not the case with the progressives, people who write letters to your employers demanding they fire you, people who send goon squads to people’s homes, goons who have shown a preference for physical violence in many cases, “environmentalists” that burn SUVs, commit other arson, start forest fires, fire guns at people’s homes, throw rocks through peoples windows. I really have no particular need to place myself or my family at risk of “retribution” from these people.

As I have posted elsewhere, in my own research which is focused on the history of marine science some of my closest colleagues are warmists. Most of them I know well enough and would trust to reveal to them my deeply skeptical views (backed up with the excellent information gleaned over the years from WUWT), but not all, and therefore I remain in the closet in my immediate field.
My closest colleague is a wonderful person with whom I have never discussed the issue for the simple reason that this person’s thesis supervisor was N—-i O——s, a leading voice for the CAGW movement, with whom this person has a good relationship. I do not want in any way to jeopardize the personal and professional relationship I have with this colleague.
Many friends in the history of science who move in other research circles already know my views; I am happy to think that I will have been ahead of the curve in my field, which inexorably is being drawn towards the issues exposed by Climategate.

I post anonymously so that I am not a target of ANOTHER libelous and slanderous smear campaign from local environmental activists. (I am a scientist. The smear campaign occurred as a result of my presentation of facts and findings (in the course of doing my job) that did not support the activists’ agenda.)

I post with a pseudonym. I run my own business and will definitely stand to lose business if my posts were seen by some of my clients.

Good idea.
A couple of points:
Anonymously means without a name which is different from posting under a pseudo. Anon is not possible here since you need to provide a publically displayed name so you need to rephrase all the question referring to anonymous.
You boilerplate wording has a derogatory (poss. judgemental) tone: “I’m concerned that putting my real name to my ideas will …” . It has an echo of Zimmerman’s “lack of integrity”.
You seems to be assuming that the reason someone may not use their “real name” is because they don’t want to associate with the post. It may be for simple privacy or the host of other reasons you have covered quite well so far.
More neutral wording may be “I don’t want to display my real name because…”
Another for the list may have to do with no edit/correction or retraction possible.

There is no mention of those who choose to be anonymous in order to subvert and confuse readers. Trolling should be included in the survey.

I post anonymously for the same reason I do not “Register” a gun.

Willis:
I’m surprised you wouldn’t understand the need to post anonymously. In the days of usenet, when one could post through proxies and be completely hidden, some very nasty people did some very nasty things. It is less common on a site such as this, where it is not possible to be anonymous.
Do a search of Richard Scoville.
Hence: “I post anonymously to avoid personal, real life attacks by ‘trolls’.”

Privacy is a right (and, BTW, software should be free!).
Some of us are obsessive about privacy (I Google myself and extirpate, as far as possible, any references). Even my email, although it works, contains nothing relevant and has multiple anonymous cut-outs, and I post from anonymous proxy IP addresses.
This obsession goes well beyond fears of identity theft or internet fraud. It may be a partly a hang-over from early days on discussion boards, where
a) distasteful (at least to me) views were expressed and I didn’t care to be associated with them (my employer, also, was quite PC ….. & ruthless)
b) I needed anonymity and multiple personæ to harry someone (a close relative had been badly mistreated) – worked a treat!
Thus I learnt all the tricks. Still use ’em. Have had to explain myself (anonymously!) to wide-awake blog owners/moderators H/T EMSmith aka Chiefio.
PSolar also has it right in distinguishing anonymity from a pseudonym nom-de-plume or alternative identity).
I suppose I would add ‘obsession with privacy’ to your list.

AlanG & others – look at pipl.com. They already aggregate all the interwebs information about specific names. A ‘John Smith’ or a ‘Murphy’ or a ‘Müller’ are probably OK.
Pascvaks couldn’t be more wrong. Catch me if you can!

“I am retired, and don’t care if people read what I post.”
This one is more complex than mere issues of bravery or cowardice. When I was employed as a corporate executive, any public opinion I might express under my name would be attributed to my company. I was under an implied contract to never make public pronouncement under my name that might in any way embarrass or disadvantage any segment of a multifaceted corporate endeavor.
Now that my tongue has been unlashed from the corporate mast, I’m a veritable blabbermouth. It also helps to be old enough, especially in California, that the social stigma of espousing unpopular opinions no longer really stings.

To express things I wouldn’t have courage to express otherwise. The same reason many students are hesitant to put their hand up in class.

“I’m not even half as paranoid as I should be” – John Silver 2011