Upcoming Anonymous Poll on Anonymity

I post only vary rarely and mostly lurk. I post a pseudonym because I wish to keep my views and general discussion on climate (and science more generally) distinct from my professional life which has an element of being public.
I sign publicly in forums related to my profession, but feel it wise to keep distinct the fascination I have the AGW debate (or shouting match as it generally seems to be) from my profession. It is not to say I am ashamed of those views, which have become pretty skeptical of CAGW, and I often discuss them in my professional forums – just that I don’t wish to be “known” for any views on the subject as commentator devoted to the subject. I want my name to be associated only with views regarding my line of work.
However, if pressed I would give my name.
I am dead against any form ad hominem type of discussion and although my own views are currently firmly skeptical, my opinion of this site is that while it is extremely interesting and informative it is far too unbalanced and dogmatic with regards to the opposing view point.
For this reason I much prefer Judith Curry’s site where warmist views are discussed and defended, and argued rationally against (although at times it can get pretty silly there too). I honestly want to know what is going on rather than take a side in a bitch fight.

How about this one: My identity does not validate or invalidate the contents of my post. Too often credentials are used instead of a sound argument.
Or this one: Having an anonymous username makes personal attacks and stereotyping baseless and thus merely a reflection of the attackers inherent bias.

BTW: Is the “C” being added now because you’ve given up denying AGW ? What’s the definition of catastrophic ? What’s wrong guys I thought we were actually cooling because it really was all those misplaced weather stations or something, now we are warming and it is caused by humans but it’s not that bad ?
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 25, 2011 at 1:54 am
Septic Matthew says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:27 pm
I like to follow the example of The Federalist. The choice to reveal or conceal your name is a civil right, requiring no justification one way or the other.
Justification? Who asked you to justify anything? I asked people the reasons that they post either anonymously or under their own name.
If you don’t want to give your reason, that’s fine — in that case the polite thing to do is to go play someplace else, rather than go all “civil rights” on whether your actions “require justification”. OK, you’ve asserted your inalienable right to not participate here … now follow up on that, and go participate elsewhere.
w.
—————————————–
I think you are misconstruing Matthew’s point, Willis. It is like the old “if you have nothing to hide, why shouldn’t (insert questioner’s identity) be able to know whatever they want about you?” furphy. The presumption of the question is that people need to explain their reasons for wanting privacy.
I agree with Matthew, and that is why your suggested ‘reason’ along the lines of never putting personal information about myself on the internet partially explains why I don’t do it. But at the highest level, the rationale is that the right to privacy does not have to be explained or justified.
The ‘reasons’ in your list are lower order concerns which apply differently to different people. Some of them apply to me. But in the end, if I was a multi-billionare living in a series of security compounds in desirable locations and using only private jets, I still wouldn’t put my personal information on the internet for all to see forever.
WUWT, and a few other trusted sites, have my email address which is real. I happily accept that, and it can be used to check my bona fides. I always use the same pseudonym.
Perhaps “I believe in the right to privacy” should be added to your list.

Handles save energy, but they do produce more CO2 on occassion too.

Smokey: simple question (getting late here I’ll need to take this up tomorrow) is a 3c increase for a doubling of CO2 considered “catastrophic” ?
Specific numbers if you like, for the sake of the argument CO2 was 280ppm pre-industrial a doubling by 2050 would be 560ppm CO2 and we’re currently approaching 400ppm.
The word “catastrophic” seems to leave so much wiggle room, a bit like the tobacco industry claiming that smoking was good for the economy as it got people off the pension quicker

I use one ID for snark and for comments that may be sane and sensible save for the kool-ade drinkers in my community, and another, easily linked locally to my real persona, for presumably constructive comments that won’t result in arson and tire-slashing. While snark is generally frowned upon, it sometimes works to constructively steer a thread back toward constructive interchange. I can’t think of any instances where that has worked, of course, but venting can be therapeutic

Who cares, ideas matter more than name. Unless you’re into letters, then flashing your name is important.

Say what? Are you talking about this thread? I’ve been generally overjoyed with the answers I’ve been getting, with the exception of one jerk who told me to “get over it” …

I explained that was not aimed at you, but the question. I apologize that the clarity was required, being missing in my original post. You’re one of my favorite authors on this site and I have no beef with you. I’ve explained my reasons and now this is tiresome.
You wrote a short while back of your early life of drug abuse and alcohol abuse, and that you were an unreliable employee. Congrats on your turn-around. You have nothing to hide – many of us prefer to make those disclosures difficult to find, impossible to exploit, impossible to misunderstand. People should please try to understand and accept (is that better than “get over it”?).
Thank you for allowing all points of view.

Good question Willis.
In my case, I almost always post anonymously on internet, on this blog, other AGW-related blogs, or any blogs or non-professional places. Only for commercial transaction or professional e-mails do I use my real name, because there is no choice doing otherwise.
The reason why is that it is extremely quick and easy to post a message on internet, so easy that it get the conversation flowing like a 50% mix of life meeting and 50 % letter exchanges, and this usually makes information exchange lively and interesting.
But, contrary to a life meeting, where your conversation is limited in time (right now, or subject to the very imperfect memory of your interlocutor) and space (only people present in the room, at hearing distance), what you say on internet is googlable anywhere and forever.
Right now, very few of my post would cause me trouble ( those AGW-related would cause me none), none of them would cause me real trouble.
But if I change places, change occupation, or in the near of far future? Who knows?
So by default I always post anonymously, better safe than sorry, especially given the current societal evolution: It seems that people tends to favor politically correct and security above privacy and individual freedom more and more, which strengthen the case for anonymity more and more too.