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.
Well, I don’t think “skeptic” or “supporter” are loaded terms, and I’m only interested in seeing how the person self-identifies
Fair enough. By “loaded”, I meant that each side uses them to mean different things.
Alarmed
Concerned
Cautious
Disengaged
Doubtful
Dismissive
I like it.
Here is one other stratification that will warm your heart, Willis.
The number of total years you studied or worked outdoors collecting data or earning a paycheck. This is obviously a mechanism to separate those know reality only from a computer screen or lecture hall.
“She’s television generation. She learned life from Bugs Bunny”. — Max Schumacher, Network 1976.
Frankly, I tend toward this name because it lends itself well to those who have less ability to attack data, and prefer, rather than addressing sources, to attack the person. It has become a persona in its own right, allowing both assumed, and admitted idiocy in my person. The nom de plume lends itself well to my purposes, and allows me to ask questions, idiotic in their isolated state, but pursuing a pattern of consistencies and inconsistencies, to determine that which is truth.
A name on the internet is not always to hide, but just as a mask can, sometimes to reveal. It can allow disassociation of one’s prior beliefs, and simplifies assumption of the ‘contrarian’ position in order to more fully explore the facts of any given case.
Largely, it’s true, I’d rather be an idiot willing to ask questions than a being unwilling to seem foolish enough to learn, as the possession of data also requires that one do their best to understand both import, scope, and error endemic to the set.
I am not anything save an amateur researcher in history. I have no papers, no research grants. I have no ‘dog in the fight’ as it were, save that of a student of history, recognizing severe inconsistencies within the record, compared to what I perceive to be true of the past, by record, evidence, and writ. That is the lead that drew me hence, researching those inconsistencies.
I have drawn both vitriol and praise in the past, for challenging closely held assumptions, up to and including threats of maiming and death for collating , assembling, and presenting data from outside sources for that purpose. This is reason enough to remain, ever and truly, your Total Idiot.
My nom de plume means little except to an Eng Lit student and even then it leads nowhere.
It carries no authority and makes no claims.
That means that whoever wants to respond to any argument I put or statement I make has to focus on that since there is nothing much else to go on.
I’m comfortable with that and if anyone else has an issue then that’s their problem and not mine.
Stephen Rasey
April 26, 2011 at 9:47 am
###
Just to be clear, I was in no way criticizing, just bringing up an additional point. I think that your very general list is the way to go. It even forms a nice “cover”. I don’t think being more climate science centric is a good idea. That could distort the data.
BTW, Tensors have a very wide range of application. Physical systems is just the most obvious. Currently I have been thinking of cognitive processes embedded within “world views” in terms of tensors. Nothing firm yet, still pretty nebulosity, but the framework is starting to congeal.
Anonymity is really not as anonymous as people think. Most forums have moderators and they usually require a legit email address. While that can be anything it can be traced back to an IP etc etc all the way back to the user. If you doubt that setup a really anonymous account and threaten someone powerful. You will be shortly joining a bunch of ID10T error types in jail (and rightly so IMHO).
I’ve been working with computers for a living since the mid 80’s. In that time I’ve seen the value of making the general public unaware of one’s real name. They have neither the access, skill or persistence to trace someone. This is a good thing because a lot of them are zealots for their beliefs and if you cross them god knows what they would do if they realized you lived nearby.
When communicating with politicians (a hobby of mine) on various issues I use email and my full name. For the public at large? No way. I try to think before I post and if I am wrong (frequently) or offend people unintentionally (some take things the wrong way and some are just too thin skinned) I apologize. I’m used to being wrong (just ask my wife!).
One question is why does WUWT have multiple users with the same name? I’ve changed mine because someone else started posting with the same one. Just a thought for the site admins.
I would find it interesting to see the political affiliation of anon posters.
I’m a professional scientist with affiliation to the University of Illinois and others. Needless to say, I’m a small fish in a tank full of sharks. Most don’t like when I argue against their positions with logic and good science, so I tend to hang back.
I’m not particularly adverse to revealing my identity, but WUWT is read by a wide audience, including the extremists on the warming side. I find that I can be quite a bit more uninhibited in what I say by being largely anonymous.
My political views tend to the right, and I’ve been an environmental science advisor to the GOP at the level of US Senate, House and State levels. However, I’m not at all in favor of the present “defund the EPA” since I remember when Lake Erie used to catch fire, and Lake Michigan contained lampreys, carp and little else.
When I feel like it is time, I’ll speak out more openly. Thank you, Willis.
I guess I fall under the “other category”… I don’t use a pseudonym, but have chosen to use just my first name because I’m a PhD student working on a climate related dissertation… and I want to graduate!
Actually, it appears that you misunderstood me:
My premise? My premise??? Dude, this is setting up for a poll. You do understand what a poll is? It is a clever device to figure out what the premise actually is, whether people feel that (for example) publicly declaring ones’ self to be a sceptic is socially unacceptable.
And while we haven’t done the poll yet, various people have already said that is exactly their experience, that not only is it unacceptable but that they personally have been attacked for their sceptical views …
And now you pop up to tell us they are wrong that and you know how it really is?
Really?
Take a deep breath and wait for the poll, my gaelic friend, that’s what polls are for, to stop folks like you from making absurd claims … and as a side issue, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. It was bad enough when you didn’t like cross-stitching. Now you claim you already know the results of the poll … I hate to think of what might be next.
w.
I don’t have time to read the other replies so this may be redundant:
I would find it more interesting to know the political affiliations and stance on AGW of *both* those who post pseudonymously and use their real names.
It seems to me that there is a difference as well between posting under an obvious pseudonym and one that looks like a real name. How many of those who post under a pseudonym make it clear that’s what they are doing, and how do they choose the pseudonym?
Have reasons for the pseudonym changed?
I originally posted under a pseudonym for the first reason- issues of safety. We adopted children, their family of origin included a psychotic stalker with a restraining order against her by her own mother, and she had tried locating us several times- coming too close for comfort more than once even without the internet. Now those children are grown and the threat is no longer so immediate, but I just feel more comfortable this way, having been posting under a pseudonym for years.
An early pseudonym actually looked like a real name- I used a combination of two family names, both fairly common so I wouldn’t be getting others into trouble. But that felt far more deceptive than an obvious pseudonym, so I switched.
I agree with Robert E. Phelan, above. Education level might be very interesting, and/or degree and field. Not sure religious affiliation would be relevant or wise, though.
Robert E. Phelan says:
April 26, 2011 at 6:28 am
Willis:
Excellent. Do you have some neutral terms for the religious and political affiliations?
w.
An interesting question would be: Did you change sides? How long ago? What was the reason (AIT, Climategate, Failure/Success of a prediction…)?
Stephen Rasey says:
April 26, 2011 at 7:48 am
Likely correct. I wasn’t planning on using that exact wording, more along the lines of:
How do you feel about the claim that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause large problems at some future date?
Alarmed
Concerned
… etc.
I’m quite open to some other formulation, however. Suggestions gladly accepted.
w.
DesertYote says:
April 26, 2011 at 8:50 am
As you might imagine, I’m sympathetic to that issue …
w.
Dave says:
“I guess I fall under the ‘other category’… I don’t use a pseudonym, but have chosen to use just my first name because I’m a PhD student working on a climate related dissertation… and I want to graduate!”
And there is the crux of the problem. Screen names are largely a symptom caused by those with an evil totalitarian mindset. Academia is infested with, and ruled by freedom-hating collectivists, who use every unethical trick in the book to get revenge on those who simply have a different point of view.
A screen name and a diploma? Or openly expressing a reasonable opinion that a professor with True Believer climate views might read? How many in Dave’s situation would make the latter choice? Be honest.
some women use a masculine name to avoid getting hit on or just ‘regarded’ as a feminine entity.
try putting a Dr in front of a nick, too – watch how ppl talk much more carefully
Dave says:
April 26, 2011 at 10:53 am
Yes indeedy, I did bust out laughing when I read that one … beats crying, I guess.
Best of luck with your dissertation. I went and asked at a couple of schools about returning to school to get a PhD, but I fear I may have been too honest, somehow the climate science departments weren’t interested … maybe I should have used a pseudonym …
w.
Nice Picture Willis, tis the wallpaper on my phone.
I signed up here a little over four years ago, after lurking a while (coming in from sunsettommy’s skeptic site), and I was writing letters to the editor around that time about global warming or climate change, which required signing my name. So, using my real name here seemed a natural extension of what I was already doing, although I knew the reach was far, far broader. I’m sure I thought about it some. Perhaps the fact that Anthony uses his name, and I noticed quite a few others that did as well convinced me to do so as well. I’m not aware of any business repercussions, which would be my main concern.
In response to my earlier post to the effect that I would sooner squat naked over a tank filled with piranha than allow the warmist [i]fascisti[/i] to learn my Real Name, we’ve got [b]Jessie[/b] at 4:54 AM on 26 April posting: [blockquote]Yikes. That is too horrible a thought. I checked out your wish. However I would suggest that you squat over a well fed school and recently cleaned tank housing piranhas, if you have a choice. [/blockquote]
Not much of a choice. As an undergraduate in pursuit of a degree in Biology, one of the “Let George Do It” jobs with which I got stuck was the maintenance of various aquaria, both marine and freshwater, and in several of these volumes one instructor was maintaining schools of piranha.
My own projects ran toward the study of ascidians and sea urchins at the time, and I didn’t give a damn about the characidae, but unpleasant and unrewarding scutwork is supposed to be part of your “learning experience,” isn’t it?
Well, what I learned about piranha is that well-fed or hungry, they’re unpleasant, aggressive, vicious little bastids, nearly as treacherous as career politicians and MSM journalists.
Thanks for the suggestion, and in return may I suggest that [b][i]you[/i][/b] try it instead.
I’ll happily stand by with hemostats, Gelfoam, and plenty of dressing materials.
Smokey says:
April 26, 2011 at 11:33 am
I thought basically the same, until I first publicly discussed screen names last year. At that point, people brought up other, totally different reasons they used a screen name.
Which is partly why I thought of doing this poll. While I agree that some use of screen names is due to the issues you raise, there are many other valid reasons for using a screen name.
It does suggest that we should include a question about perceived degree of vulnerability. I’m up for any ideas on that one. One would have to be the nature of your surroundings (city/suburb/rural/hermit). Another is security in your field of work (Established beyond question/Generally secure/Somewhat vulnerable/Vulnerable). A separate question relates to your position in your larger family and friends.
Or perhaps do an end run on the question by simply having checkboxes for something like “I choose not to reveal my position on climate at work/ to my non-immediate family/ to my friends / at my church.”
Dang, this polling is fun.
All the best, thanks as always for your thoughts,
w.
Quote: Willis
“Unknown
This is a catchall category.
■I feel more comfortable posting anonymously, but I’m not sure why.” End quote.
Thanks for reminding me as that explains a whole lot of personal approach, for many not just me. I am very introverted. No, introversion is NOT an illness that can be cured by forcing us to the front; that is pure fallacy. I have been front and center in my past and every time I found/trained/delegated a replacement ASAP.
I am firm believer that we are warming. Because that is the general interglacial phase earth is in. The overall trend is up over the current millennia; decadal up or down within that trend apparently is determined by far more than CO2/GHG’s
AGW? Well, let me put it this way; I am a firm believer that man drastically affects man’s micro-environment. I just have severe doubts that a few ten thousands of CO2 concentration has any discernable effect, period. Asphalt, A/C, huge areas of heavily manicured lawn, billions of machines consuming fuel/electricity producing heat, breeze blocking buildings, huge areas of concrete/brick absorbing sunlight and radiating heat; all of these seriously impact micro-environments and in some heavily urbanized areas, the local macro-environment. Still, all of this combined is still just a thin mosaic of veneer on a small portion of land and to me, unlikely to dramatically change/disturb earth’s atmosphere.
I loved Chemistry, Math and Physics back in school; but I was not destined to graduate higher into the occupational levels. Instead I worked my way up from the bottom, literally shoveling human waste into wheelbarrows at a sewer plant as part of my background and experience. I got promoted when PC’s first hit businesses and no-one knew how to operate them. At the time I had formal training in COBOL, CICS, FORTRAN and BAL Assembler, (at my own expense); but I got to work on PC’s, and fix bad BASIC and DBase programs. At the time, Finance was the main part of business looking into PC’s. Helping Finance employees understand their Lotus spreadsheets caused them to realize that I understood math AND (a very big AND) I was meticulous on numbers; both their source and meaning. I introduced statistics trend analysis to budget analysis and taught my employees that statistics trends are indicative and are never proof. From PC flunky to Finance guru and finally top banana as Budget Manager for a three quarters of a billion dollars per year and 110 offices. From there to HQ and sideways promotion to something called Business Systems Architect. I interfaced with Information Technology on their developments and the business customers they were developing for. Working up from the bottom meant I knew not only the positions and duties impacted by new programs, but also real people filling those duties. I was the wakeup call for many; a trouble shooter par excellence for many, a valued sounding board for others. To many, I was obsessive about data, meta data, word meaning and use, math, detail and databases. Along the way, I added C, C+, FOCUS, some SQL, CLIST, Advanced Basic, and a smattering of other languages to my coding ability. After a fun career, I retired. The majority of my life I spent working for the United States Federal government; mostly because I believed that the best opportunities for someone without a degree was in the civil service. It only took a couple of dozen jobs like the sewer plant one before I figured this out.
Why all of this discourse? My hackles stand up when I hear/read bafflegab. Especially, when bafflegab is used in response to definitive and succinct queries. Over those years in Finance, I helped many people frame their technical jargon and knowledge into clear English or conversely reading their technical gobbledygook budget request submissions as just that, gobbledygook meant to confuse not educate.
I never can understand why so many in the organizations I worked in, insisted on blinders, metaphorically speaking. In an environment where a desired outcome is C and A + B = C; it always seemed to me that people assigned a task inherent to A or B would almost always forget that C is the desired outcome. Focusing on a component and forgetting the result is absurd. Compound that by stacking component focus upon component focus and we lose all sight of the result. To me, the climate goons have lost sight of the climate prediction goal. They are so entrenched/entranced on stacked components that they have lost sight of even their climate god (CO2) and have replaced it lately with a small component concept (alarmist AGW). To me they must prove the CO2/GHG warming effect before they can man’s true contribution to CO2/GHG. They can do it the other way around, but that assumes the climate goons drop all pretenses that CO2 is evil; (which do they claim is the true danger factor, CO2 or man’s contribution to %CO2). The climate goons have cried/screamed wolf for decades now and we are not much closer to truly knowing atmospheric interactions and CO2’s roles in that atmosphere. The theory has been stated, but there are no defined tests proving the theory; component focus and computer models are NOT valid substitutions for defined and controlled tests of the theory. Tree sampling, ice coring, mud sampling, extinctions, melting ice, weather blaming are all component diversions that do not prove any part of the CO2 theory, let alone AGW and catastrophic climate.
Summary:
58
Male
United States of America
Federal Government (Information Technology, Finance, Retail, Metallic Paint factory, Colored Paint and Clear Finishes factory (assembling batches and Laboratory work), janitor, short order cook, US Steel laborer, Farm laborer (milk farm) in reverse order with many smaller occupations left out)
AGW skeptic, Interglacial Lukewarmist
Data/detail intent
Formula driven
Computer Code conscious and depending on language often literate
Firm disbeliever that computer models are absolute in accuracy. Sorry, I’ve written/seen the code in many. People are human and tend to code very narrowly. A true climate model would dwarf the most complex operating system extant. The sheer amount if inputs, calculations, trends, outputs that impact inputs is darn near infinite. To date; all climate models have been developed with minimal resources often depending on a very limited subset of developers and a very limited set of real data inputs. A truly genuine and comprehensive climate model would take decades to develop; be highly modular allowing sub component corrections, require billions of inputs
Enough physics background to cringe when AGW alarmists and climate goons claim gas/vapor cause/effects without the physics to back up the claim.
Enough statistics background to seriously doubt anyone’s on the fly statistics formula without first exposing that formula to serious evaluation and independent testing. Statistics formulae kept secret means that they are not ready for prime time and often that the developer is embarrassed about coding structure and order.
Enough outdoor adventuring from Western deserts, Sierra and Rocky Mountains, Gulf of Mexico fishing, Louisiana Bayous, Eastern Appalachians and Adirondacks to seriously doubt AGW alarmist claims of doom in all and sundry. Urban centric I am not.
Creature driven but not obsessed: I have raised/harvested all sorts of critters from quail to cattle. While I have loved many animals as pets, my farm background has always kept me aware of the dangers of anthropomorphism and where I stand in the food chain. I view all life as precious, but my life is more precious to me and therefore other life (from seeds to plants, fish, fowl, mammal, amphibian and reptile) are food (the Cajun influence).
In the Sixties, Seventies, and some of the Eighties I was considered a tree hugger and leftist. I watched as the eco-nutty moved so far to my left that I am now considered conservative. Funny, my beliefs are the same and if scratched on any of the old democratic causes I am still firmly democrat. The eco-nutty and democrat assault on modern society and US economics as some sort of penance for our past sins, I cannot countenance.
Firm disbeliever that Peer Review is a benchmark! Peer review is supposed to be a tool that aids quality submissions before publishing. Not to prevent publishing, but to help prevent embarrassment and perhaps career killing shame over a premature or immature submission.
Patented, copyrighted, proprietary intellectual knowledge is permissible when earnings are dependent on keeping specific intellectual components secret. I can think of nowhere in Climatology/tree coring/mud sampling/ice drilling/etcetera where this is the case. In fact, given the national/multi-national/global AGW claims, it is imperative that nothing is held back from the public. I federal service I was taught that when the Government became involved and national impact/importance is declared everything involved in deciding/determining that impact became Government property. That is; when the United States becomes responsible for a problem, the United States is responsible for all evidence and information about that problem. I am confused that that this has not been made so regarding AGW; it may be that the overseeing Government agencies are ignoring their responsibilities.
I sometimes use this as a place not to forget things. I just realized I need a question “Did you participate in or follow along with the design of this poll Y/N)”. Is there a difference for a “naive responder” who has never seen the poll?
w.