Upcoming Anonymous Poll on Anonymity

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.

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.