Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
[NOTE: This is not the poll, it is preparation for the poll.]
Well, I have to say that I have learned a whole lot already in this project. In preparation for an upcoming poll on the use of names in posting, I’d asked for reasons why people post either pseudonymously or under their own name. I was very surprised at the number and the wide range of reasons people put forward.
In order to make sense of it all, I have divided them up into general categories. I think that what I’ll do with the poll is ask the questions about the categories. I’ll include the examples so that people can make informed choices. In general order of the number of responses, these are the answers to the first question:
WHY DO YOU POST UNDER A PSEUDONYM?
The category that got the most answers was
The Issue is Privacy/Security From General Retaliation / Fraud / Spam
In this category I tried to distinguish the issue of the specific subject matter (climate change) from issues regarding privacy or retaliation in general. The comments were:
- Stalking is always a concern to a female.
- I was stalked by a spaced out woman. A narcissistic poisonous toad from high school.
- I have been attacked for my views.
- I am pleased to get some protection from the cloud of gnats hovering around the net.
- I am the sole support of others.
- I’m concerned about putting any personal information about myself on the web for any reason.
- I believe in the right to privacy
- A substantial reason in the UK is the current state of defamation law.
- I post anonymously to avoid ad hominem and personal attacks from a co-worker, who is a rabid militant anti-religious, pro-CAGW atheist/zealot (not a nice guy).
- I cherish my privacy.
- Having been personally harassed (phone calls, sugar in the gas tank, nails in the driveway), I’d rather avoid dealing with more crazies.
- Even if the risk is only slight, countless others are refusing to take the risk, so why should I?
- I don’t know who might read the post and what they might do with it.
- It would be easy to connect up my posts, email address and ultimately my credit cards. Spam and fraud would then follow.
- I have someone constantly Googling my name.
- Metaphorically speaking, I have relatives in the old country …
- I am concerned about identity theft.
The Issue is Freedom to Express Myself
In this category were a variety of statements that the person found it easier to express their opinions when using a pseudonym.
- I can say things that I would be embarrassed to say in person.
- I feel able to express more confident views if those statements aren’t personally attributable to me.
- It is like putting on a superman suit, you can say anything, be anything and fly anywhere. And if any-one with kryptonite strikes you down, what does it matter, tomorrow you will be Clark Kent.
- I find it easier to express negative views when I post anonymously.
- The anonymous nature of the blog site allows people to speak more freely.
- I have blown my credibility using my previous handle. It is time for a new public identity.
- It allows me to “compartmentalize” my opinions on very different subjects.
- Posting anonymously offers an opportunity for crowd-sourced criticism before having my name attached to a bad idea.
- I have no strength of conviction or lack intestinal fortitude.
- I enjoy “trolling”, stirring things up.
- It’s a chance to let out my repressed wild and crazy inner personalities.
- 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 posting for relaxation – not “publication”.
The Issue is that the Web is a Permanent Record
In this category people pointed out a number of issues with the permanence of the electronic record. The comments were:
- To be honest, I also say some pretty stupid things, occasionally, especially when imbibing the suds.
- A future employer might have issues with some of the things I post.
- Who wants to be responsible for my stupid ramblings when I am involved with Jack Daniels? Not me!
- I want to maintain plausible deniability.
- I don’t want people / future employers / opponents to be able to research my previous statements.
- What you say on internet is searchable anywhere and forever.
- It could interfere with getting a security clearance.
- I don’t want current comments being dredged up in a possible future political campaign.
- If a potential employer or anyone else for that matter searches for me, I want them to see my CV or work
- I plan to run for president and want to be able to change my opinions as may be convenient.
- I don’t wish for my thoughts and comments from years gone by to turn up whenever someone does a search on my name.
The Issue Is The Specific Subject Matter of Climate
These were people for whom the issue was that stating their views on climate would cause them problems.
- It may cost me business/lose me funding.
- I work with clients/customers or in a market where skeptical views are not welcome.
- I don’t fancy being beaten to death with a lump of coal in the middle of the night.
- I do a fair bit of sub-contract work for companies that have bought into the green dream, so I’m invoking my very own version of the … uh … precautionary principle 🙂
- 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.
- A rabid green has haunted me in other forums.
- I have to make a living proffering engineering services to some of these “green” industries, so I can’t risk getting blackballed.
- I’ve experienced prejudice in the workplace
- I work with people who believe Albert Gore is a scientist.
- If I posted under my own name, it would be tantamount to expressing my political views to all and sundry and in my industry that would convey a lack of professionalism.
The Issue is Judgement Of Ideas and not Personalities
These people felt that if they posted pseudonymously people would judge their ideas, and not judge them personally:
- I want readers to judge my comments on their content, not their provenance.
- I don’t wish to disclose my formal qualifications, or lack of them, or that I am in a different field.
- My identity does not validate or invalidate the contents of my post. Too often credentials are used instead of a sound argument.
- Using my real name is just asking for ad hominem attacks.
- I don’t want to be associated with my job when posting on technical subjects.
- I have worked for oil companies, mining companies or agribusiness and it would likely be held against me.
- 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.
- It’s good that no-one on the internet knows if you’re a frog.
The Issue is Governmental/Organized Retaliation
For these people, the issue is organized retaliation or reprisal from the government or other major organization:
- I post anonymously for the same reason I do not register a gun.
- Trust no one.
- Greenpeace said “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”
- I’m not even half as paranoid as I should be.
- Didn’t Zorro and the Lone Ranger wear their masks because of things like this?
My Pseudonym Is A Significant “Nickname”
These people feel that the pseudonym under which they post has significance:
- I use a moniker because it describes what I am and how I see the world in 3 words.
- It’s traditional since the beginning of the web to have a handle.
- People will recognise my handle and recognise what I stand for.
- I think it is fun to call myself by my handle.
- I enjoy putting forward an identity that says more about me than my name.
The Issue is Restrictions On My Freedom To Post
These are people who have external restrictions on what and where they can post:
- In my country you could be targeted by the consensus people.
- I am an executive in a company incorporated in the U.S. As such, I am legally responsible for anything I say in public, and anything I say is by definition, company policy.
- It has been explicitly stated that unapproved public posting (on any website) would be a bad career move.
- Many companies have policies against talking to the media without authorisation – usually for the obvious reason that the employer doesn’t want employees holding themselves out as representing the company if they’re not authorised to.
- I am 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.
There are Issues With My Real Name
These people pointed to various problems that can arise when they use their real name:
- I have a common name and use a pseudonym so that I can search for my postings.
- I’m not British / American, and for an English speaker my name is difficult to remember / sounds weird / carries a silly pun / leads to misunderstandings.
- it would be entirely possible to get a stalker, and some poor innocent victim(s) could be hounded unfairly.
- Google my name and you can find many people. I would not like to get any one of them in trouble.
- My name is the same as a wanted criminal / bad person.
Unknown
This is a catchall category.
- I feel more comfortable posting anonymously, but I’m not sure why.
OK, so those are the categories for people who post pseudonymously, along with the examples. If there are problems or things mis-categorized or better categories, please let me know.
Next, here are the categories that came up in response to the second question, again in general order of number of responses:
WHY DO YOU POST UNDER YOUR OWN NAME?
It Is An Issue Of Honesty / Responsibility
The most common response said that when posting under their own names, the issue was one of personal honesty or responsibility. The comments were:
- If I write something, I’ll stand for it, or I would not write it.
- I feel that by posting under my own name I am showing I am willing to be open and honest about who I am, what I do and why I believe what I do.
- If I can’t be willing to put my name to what I think, I won’t post it.
- I can’t lie with a straight face.
- I say what I mean and am terribly honest at it.
- I’ve had my own name a long time and have grown attached to it.
- I have to stand for what I believe as who I am, otherwise what I say is all posturing.
- I consider my self responsible for my own opinions.
- It’s a matter of clarity and honesty.
I’m Free To Disregard Opposition
These people recognized that the were operating in a hostile environment, and are free (for various reasons) to choose to ignore that:
- I am retired, and don’t care if people read what I post.
- 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.
- I’m in the “I don’t care” crowd.
- I am totally uninterested about what other people think of me.
- Because I don’t follow th herd.
- Since my work is not publicly funded or grant funded, I’m at liberty to say what I wish without concern of losing my job.
- If they want to google my name, they should do it if they don’t have better things to do.
- I don’t post anonymously because I have a martyr complex.
It Is An Ethical Question
For these people, it is a question of personal ethics:
- A person of worth will stand up in their own name for what is right and against what is wrong.
- If such things as climate change are important we should pony up and admit where we stand.
- I dislike anonymity on principle
- A screen name feels like hiding behind a false front.
- I consider it a basic aspect of decency not to say or do anything to which you would not sign your name.
- 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.
- I feel uneasy posting anonymously.
- I have never not posted with my own and real name. Why would I do otherwise?
- I prefer to say what I think and feel anyway without hiding under a cloak.
The Issue Is Standing Up To Intimidation/Fear
These people say that they post under their own name because they are standing up to intimidation:
- I refuse to be intimidated by the dangers of the world.
- It would be cowardly for me to hide behind an alias.
- I would rather walk free in the sun, than skulk around, frightened of my own shadow, tugging my forelock at the Econazis.
- I always sign my name. I believe that it is cowardly not to. I am a devout Catholic and a AGW sceptic.
- If I have too little courage of my own convictions to sign my name to my opinions, why should anyone pay attention?
- It’s a statement that I will not be intimidated.
- I think it is cowardice to post anonymously.
- Courage is what is needed right now, if you have something to say and if you can, then put your name to it.
It Acts As A Brake On Excessive Behavior
These people highlighted that they act less responsibly when they post pseudonymously.
- I am much better mannered when I have to take responsibility for my words.
- My claims tend to extravagance when I post anonymously.
- Using my name forces me to keep my posts measured and decent.
- I started posting under my real name after making an ass of myself anonymously in a blog comment section.
There Are Social Benefits from Knowing Each Other’s Names
The benefits to society were the main issue to these people
- I believe it is simply good manners to identify yourself when talking to people.
- I think that in the long view we as a society get along much better when we know each others names.
- I use my real name after getting involved in a serious debate turned web based research project with several people who had to live down the consequences of being called killer wombat, Mr buggles and mudge!
I Have No Problem With A Permanent Record Of My Statements
These people are aware that the web record is permanent, but they are not deterred by that:
- I feel free to change my opinion should I have reason to and will defend or dismiss my former opinions accordingly.
- I have no concern about people reading my opinions a decade from now.
- I want to be able to claim ownership of my ideas.
So that’s the categories for the poll as they stand now. A few general comments.
First, I was surprised by the wide variety of responses to both questions. I would not have thought that there were that many reasons. Even divided into categories there are still a lot, and very interesting reasons.
Next, I plan to add the following questions:
- Age
- Sex
- Country
- Career (Industry/Education/Science/Health/Student/Retired … what other careers?)
- General AGW position (skeptic/supporter/still considering)
What else would make the poll more interesting?
My thanks to everyone for their contributions to date, the poll goes forwards.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Truth always underlies great humour, Willis. Cross-stitching – that’s hilarious.
On the darker side of pseodonyms, I see on Twitter a piece of scum tweeting as JamesDellnpole. He even uses Delingpole’s avatar photograph. It would be hard to think of a more execrable anonymity than one used to impersonate a real person.
Geoff Sherrington says: April 26, 2011 at 4:58 am
“I do not think that scientists use pseudonyms or false contacts when submitting scientific papers. Where’s the difference?”
Geoff, all forums for debate (including scientific journals) have their rules both expressed and implied. Scientific papers are based on the presumption that the views have been carefully considered and should be read with reference to previous work. As such, this kind of forum is hostile to those who do not have a standing in science (or can’t get their paper’s published in “peer reviewed” journals).
In contrast, the internet is a far more egalitarian place requiring less careful drafting of your posts and where many forums are based on the presumption that people are judged on what they say not who they are, nor is anyone expected to have read all their proceeding posts in order to comment on the last. (Much to annoyance of those “in charge”)
The result (where posts are anonymous) is that a newcomer to a forum can post pretty much on a par with someone who has been in the forum for a while. That is why many internet forums have been so successful – they don’t discriminate against the newbies only against those who either can’t, or won’t, make a good argument.
Now, it may be a better question to ask why people are allowed to use their own names, particularly when they are well known in this forum? E.g. should the comments of Willis be more important and more carefully read than the latest newcomer if e.g. Willis is talking rubbish and the newcomer is speaking sense?
By having anonymous posts for everyone, you prevent the “argument from authority” (which is the usual method of Climate Alarmists), and you force people to argue on the facts. That may be unwelcome if someone finds that they are constantly repeating the same facts and arguments again and again to each new comer, but the benefit is that newcomers are not put off replying to comments because they are “too low in the pecking order” of the forum to feel able to comment.
Mike Haseler
You may have to add another poll on why one would or would not answer the following questions:
Age
Sex
etc
Contributors to this blog have the courage and conviction to divulge their real names. My posting under my real name is a hat tip intended to be acknowledge your courage and send the message that you are not alone.
I use a pseudonym because I work in the environmental field, and also teach in higher education. I know that I have lost work because I have not been a whole-hearted flag waver for AGW and fear I would be unemployable if I “came out” as a skeptic.
@Scottish Sceptic
My parents are actually also English, but we moved over here (Australia) when I was 5, so I count myself as an Aussie.
Oh and your right about how them Americans shure do butcher the English language 😉
I post on multiple fora which cover multiple subjects, often having to do with politics, and always use the same username. When I meet people on these fora with whom I can establish a position of trust, I share privately with them, my given name. I acquired my username very early in my career by a collective admin pool, all women, who had a tough time understanding just what it is that I do for a living.
I am a forest geneticist, 55, living in Oregon.
Because Oregon is a bluer-than-blue state controlled by progressive democrats that mainline the anthropogenic CO2 as driver of global warming KoolAid, and I work for a public agency, I must be discrete in how I identify myself in public fora. That said, I am finding there are many skeptics in my agency. I do take the time to share information from time to time, pointing to the weakness of the AGW argument, with both true believers and skeptics.
@ur momisugly Andy G – agreed indeed, I speak from the sense that ‘original sceptism’ is somehow ‘Shill’ originated. However, here and now, I agree we’ve seen this rather insidious embracement of ‘left’ into any ecomentalist ideology/technology. Perhaps akin to an orwellian (farm) anology in which the righteous misanthropic left are keen to find a new science to lean on where they can be seen to be ‘saving the world’ (AGW). Profiteering with a green rinse. Like the windmill, the air turbines muct be erected at any cost…!
I still believe I was forced out of my last teaching job due to bias against my AGW and conservative viewpoints.
Some random anonymous thoughts:
Why do most newspaper, magazine and other blogs ask you to provide a username? Having a username appears to be standard practice.
# # #
Scottish Sceptic says:
“I used to post under my own name, then I got a blog and WordPress doesn’t understand that I want to post here under my real name…”
When I try to post using my real name on other sites hosted by WordPress, I get an error message saying, “You do not own that identity.” Huh? WUWT?
# # #
Rules against pseudonyms would mean the demise of the WWF. Professional wrestling would never be the same without wrestlers named Gorgeous George, etc.
# # #
I make no apologies because I’m doing nothing wrong. It’s not an indictment using a screen name. I give my ID to those I choose. Anthony and I have met several times. He has my name, address, email address and phone number. The general public does not. Why should they? I am a commentator under one name, so both of my regular readers know me as well as if I commented under my birther name.
# # #
No doubt the summarily fired Oregon State Climatologist wishes he had used a screen name when expressing his educated opinion about natural climate variability.
Willis:
Level of education tends to be sociologically significant. Different countries have somewhat different systems, but you can try the double-barreled approach: ask for highest degree earned (< high school, high school / technical school, associate, BA/BS, MA/MS, Ph.D., Post Doc which should be a multiple choice, not open-ended question) and number of years completed.
I would also be interested in multiple choice questions about religious affiliation and general political orientation. The first 'cause I've always had an interest in what correlates with religious affiliation (I believe my MA thesis in 1973 was the first time ever anyone reported that Catholics had achieved income and educational parity with Protestants in general). The second because I think we are a more diverse lot politically than is sometimes apparent. The down-side to both questions is that if 90% of us turn out to be Libertarian Druids it would confirm the worst suspicions of our critics and make life for our fellow Druids much more precarious. The political orientation question can be difficult: we have a variety of different citizenships represented here, so party affiliation is not going to be much of a help, while even terms like "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings in different places and probably don't tap adequately into important dimensions of political orientation – ahhh… Oh well….. if you were to use a check box "are you a registered member of a political party?" and then provide a fill in the blank box, you might get sufficient responses to be able to say something…. Just keep in mind that ipen-ended questions are harder to tabulate than multiple choice.
An interesting question might be: Who inspired your interest in Science? As for pseudonyms, I am deep in the heart of Indian Territory trying to anchor commission decisions in common sense. I am always trying to get folks to consider the repercussions of having all of our eggs in one basket, if by chance conditions unexpectedly go in the opposite direction.
Will,
We do It because we are not nerds here, our names are what we like to call ourselves, Not what we are called by the sports jocks.
Here we have the power of our minds(or not).
I did hear a saying once that .The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth.
Maybe they were thinking about the internet, It WWW.
I never post on a forum or newsgroup without doing the best I can to hide anything that will identify me. In this case, I am sending this message through three proxy servers. Giving out personal information to the world is not my idea of rational behaviour.
There are a number of reasons why I post under my own name, most covered in the list above.
I’m a government bureaucrat, with more than enough years in for retirement benefits, so there’s no fear of repercussions at work.
By posting under my own name, I’m countering the natural tendency in everyone, including myself, of descending into name calling when dealing in emotional issues.
I have a wife, and my kids were teenagers not to long ago. All of them were quick to point out my character flaws, so I’m not living in a fool’s paradise where I think I’m perfect. I’m willing to admit errors of judgment.
A referral was made to the cowboy, Tom Mix, above. Tom Mix was before my time, but Paladin – in “Have Gun-Will Travel” fit into the same mould. Also Richard Boone, the lead actor, was somewhat ugly- someone I could more readily identify with than Roy Rogers or Tom Mix.
Willis, I think you need to break the “general AGW” question down into categories. Sceptics are all over the map on the various aspects. A response that averages out these issues may not tell you much in the end. Sub-questions might deal with degree and type of anthropogenic influence, urgency of response (if any), type of response (from conservation to geo-engineering), etc. Yeah, that opens another can o’ worms, but why not do it right the first time?
“I was surprised by […]”
Careful there Willis. [ :
Invites drawing of parallels with mainstream science press release.
Living here in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, as one of the productive private sector tax paying slaves I fear retaliation from my government masters.
‘Every name is a PSEUDONYM’
Skynet maker of a machine – terminator. Business or Government?
Why shouldn’t truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction after all, has to make sense
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society
For in a Republic, who is “the country?” Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
What is in a name, Mark Twain is not Samuel Clemens, I hope.
A pressurized vessel in at terminal over-pressure – Shrill scream.. Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion.
My real name is fairly unique, and I don’t want something I wrote in the past to be dredged up to be used against me by some future business associate or person doing “due diligence” on me. In addition, search engines generally will not easily provide the full context of any comment at the time of a future inquiry, so my comments could be greatly misunderstood.
Andy G says: April 26, 2011 at 6:06 am
“@Scottish Sceptic
My parents are actually also English, but we moved over here (Australia) when I was 5, so I count myself as an Aussie. Oh and your right about how them Americans shure do butcher the English language 😉”
Next you’ll be saying you married another graduate at St.Andrews University! I’m intrigued to find out more, but perhaps it would be more sensible to carry on the discussion on my blog (click the name at the top of my post).
Purely privacy issues for me. I use ‘fake’ names and email addresses strictly while out and about the web. I can say without doubt that I get spam and plenty of other unwanted contact having only used a name somewhere. I suspect adding any/all of the free EM endings like ‘@yahoo’ is all the spammers need. I change them up once junkmail exceeds the free space allocated.
* Age
50
* Sex
M
* Country
Canada
* Career
General contractor, home renos/construction (Formerly in corporate commnications, and before that educational TV/animation)
* General AGW position
Skeptic.
Two things red flagged for me. ‘Now we know everything’ and the consensus that, ‘OK, NOW we know everything.’ My experience in edTV was that you could add 1 month to pre-production schedule for every expert on the vetting committee. Getting experts to agree – on anything – was a line by bloody line fight. As was agreement on what we could say, “for sure, for sure.”
Visually describing something like how this atom bonded with this one was torturous. Even with accepted science, every statement of ‘fact’ had to be couched with “what we know now” or “what we think (now) happens” or “what ‘many’ think happens is something like this . . .”
Never, and I mean never could you say something like ‘we know this’ or ‘all scientists agree’ or even ‘just the really smart ones’. To keep things on track you would often have only one expert for one specific area and another for this bit, and so on. That way you had more than 1 expert for the program as a whole but no 2 sat in on the same script meeting. My first experience with the, ‘now we know everything – not’ was back in the mid-80’s when the accepted science had a linear progression for man’s evolution. (Oh, and don’t get me started on using terms like, ‘man’. That thought just brought a shiver.) There was some theories out there about multiple branches, or shotgun evolution explosions in many directions but the general consensus (at that time) was monkey to man in a nice straight slope. Our series was in the can less than 6 months when proof positive, no doubt whatever, was found. A fundamentally less developed skull but unquestionably younger (by thousands of years) than the far more developed skulls of our ancestors. OK, NOW we know everything . . .
Global warming first came into our programs in the late 80’s. I was on board at the time as it seemed to make sense and the crazy/alarmist stuff hadn’t started or at least caught my attention. The ‘now we know everything’ and that some 2000+ experts were all in complete agreement as to what we know ‘for sure’ struck me as well, impossible. So I started to look into the science of what we ‘know for sure’ and the more I looked the less I found.
I’m still looking into it; and looking with an open mind – or so I think. I find it hard to believe that we can continually pump our waste into the atmosphere and water without any negative effect, however I find it equally hard to believe that the only solution is, “Shut ‘er down – RIGHT NOW!”
-barn
California Bureaucrat says:
April 26, 2011 at 12:20 am
I work for a city in California where I am required to publicly toe the line as it relates to climate change issues and reducing CO2 emissions, even though I think it to be a fool’s errand. Posting with my real name would be detrimental to my career and my family’s finances.
This epidemiologist at UCLA who didn’t toe the line is running into the troubles you speak of:
Your list seems pretty complete, except for “Unknown.” Maybe you should list it as “Fool’s names, like fool’s faces, are often seen in public places.”
But, similar to Nylo, I wonder if you could construct the poll in a manner to see what issues are different for those who post under pseudonyms and those who post under their given names (and I’ll repeat—all posters are anonymous to you unless you know them personally). For instance, a poster using a real name may also understand security/privacy concerns while one using a pseudonym may not engage in excessive behavior in any case.
The personal questions are fine. I don’t know anything to add, except for, as someone has already noted, the US is a big country. Alaska is not Hawaii is not Texas is not New Hampshire is not etc. But then the same is true of the United States of Mexico.
OK S.
I choose to remain Pseduoanonymous for a few reasons:-
1) Kent is in the UK, which is NOT a free country under the EU bureaucratic dictatorship. I don’t wish to be on their “watched” list as a potential terrorist.
2) Safety- animal rights nutters already have put bombs under animal researchers cars here in the UK and some (many) of these crazies are also alarmists.
3) I don’t like to spread my real name around the interweb for Identity security reasons.
4) Using one’s real name just might not be a good idea in todays “climate” of corruption. May impact on my chances of future job applications and business opportunities.
5) My real name being used on a US climate sceptic website may cause problems the next time I try to visit the US or even leave the UK.
6) You just don’t know who is reading this and what they may do if you put your real name up.
regards
Geoffrey Ebeneezer Postlethwaite