Hansen’s resignation from NASA GISS may not be what it seems
Guest Post by Chris Horner, CEI
So, NASA’s in-house celebrity activist James Hansen says the following in explaining his departure from a lucrative perch — salary alone: $180k per year — one that proved extremely lucrative while there was a useful foil in the White House:
“‘As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government,’ he told the Times.”
Hogwash.
Not that “Job 1” for Hansen at NASA was attentiveness to ethics guidelines or anything, but the rules say no such thing. See 5 C.F.R. Part 6901.103 (c) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.805.
Indeed, on top of that cool $1 million-plus in outside cash tossed Hansen’s way after he ratcheted up the alarmism and — more important to many — politicking, he presided over an elaborate document removal/destruction operation run by his protégé and presumptive successor, Gavin Schmidt.
Now, we are to believe that Hansen is so concerned with his ethical obligations as a government employee that he is willing to operate by his own set of rules that, this time, are more restrictive than the real ones.
The fact is that Hansen, as a government employees, is not barred from testifying against the government. Ethics rules applying to Hansen at NASA simply say that he must seek permission to testify, just as he (usually, but not always) sought and, as the world knows in deed if not according to the rhetoric, received permission for his other global warming advocacy.
That requirement that Hansen first receive permission before testifying exists “to prevent an employee from using public office for the employee’s personal private gain”. Which (chuckle) is the same rationale behind the other ethics provisions under which Hansen sought and was routinely granted permission to make lots of outside money on his advocacy. Under George W. Bush.
So Hansen had no reason to believe he would not be permitted to do as he says he wishes.
Unless…
Ah, yes. Hansen’s current attention-getting story, when squared with the ethics rules, is that he has been denied approval to serve as an expert witness per 5 C.F.R 6901.103(d) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.805(c) (serving as a fact witness requires overcoming no such impediments).
Further curious is that his testimony would be a particularly easy approval if “the subject matter of the testimony does not relate to the employee’s official duties”. Which we know would be the case — despite our having argued the absurdity of the idea — because since 2006 he has been absolutely cleaning up with outside income only made acceptable by the supposed reality that his various speeches and prizes, etc., were apparently deemed by NASA as not relating to his official duties. Under Bush.
But now, suddenly, under President Obama, it seems that the subject matter of his activism would indeed relate to his professional duties. Per the administration. According to Hansen’s clear implication. Huh.
If we are to believe Hansen — and face it, we all want to believe him — he was denied permission to serve as an expert witness. If this occurred, it is clear that this is a recent development. That is, during the Obama administration.
Which administration is, apparently, “muzzling” Hansen.
Surely you’ve seen the stories.
Of course, it could be that Mr. Hansen is talking through his hat. Some might argue, not for the first time. For example, what case or cases did he inquire about? Or, did someone who mattered merely let on that, if he asked to testify against the administration, they would deep-six the idea?
It is entirely plausible that Hansen has simply found that his NASA gig isn’t what it used to be in better times for the global warming advocate. Times when, for example, the media had no torn allegiances between Hansen’s bombast and the White House.
For example, that whole “Bush muzzling Hansen” mythology was just that; useful to everyone pushing it to superstitiously or conveniently explain the world, but not supported by much evidence (and belied by thousands of interviews).
Notwithstanding this, it remains worth noting that Team Obama putting the squeeze on Hansen is far less far-fetched.
Sure, early on their Department of Justice did work hard to protect him, a valuable advocate in pushing “the cause,” from having his ethics records disclosed to us, maintaining specious legal claims well after we filed suit.
Then, after Hansen made a pain of himself by drawing even more unwanted attention to the festering Keystone XL pipeline decision, getting arrested with (other) celebrities in front of the White House, the caginess suddenly evaporated. I received a call asking where I would like to have a messenger deliver the entirety of Hansen’s relevant ethics records we had sought.
Which is how we, and anyone else interested, learned about just how lucrative Hansen’s NASA employment had become for him.
So long as the right foil was in the White House. Then, a government astronomer could make an astronomical sum off of global warming alarmism. Whatever the rules said. Maybe Keystone XL really is proving to be the “game-changer” the greens have said.
============================================================
Christopher Horner is a fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author, his most recent book being “The liberal War on Transparency
And
And.
– – – – – – – –
Jan/Anthony/JC,
I find the topic of anonymous participation is always important to discuss.
The integrity related implications of anonymous participants in a argumentative process and / or dialog are persistent. The integrity related unknowables associated with anonymity are always in the background when anonymity is present. It is an unavoidable concern with anonymous dialog / processes.
In the anonymous situation, there is a significant inherent lack of knowledge to verify the intellectual integrity of those being anonymous.
Therefore, in principle, I discount somewhat the intellectual worth of comments made by anonymous commenters with whom I have dialogs with.
John
Forget the Perlwitz obfuscator! This thread is about Hansen retiring and any implications regarding his retirement.
I rather like the idea of Judith Curry applying for and achieving the position Hansen is leaving! She knows her science; Judith is strict enough to aim for accurate data no matter who it pisses off and she is tough enough to deal with the RC hooligans who play games with telling the public the true unvarnished unadjusted truth!
I like some of the other scientist suggestions for replacing Hansen, but I favor Judith in this case.
@John Whitman says:
April 9, 2013 at 8:48 am
I suspect your restrained manner of questioning said Perlwitz is based on a determination to maintain dignity in exchanges, which I whole-heartedly appreciate.
For me, after I have felt I have given every opportunity for a different interpretation, if someone demonstrates conclusively that they abuse that, I conclude they have excluded themselves from that consideration.
In terms of actually getting a response of any significance your manner above may well be more effective at times however!
As to his inclination to intellectually spit as you vividly put it, from what I have seen here he may have the desire but certainly does not have the capacity: there has been nothing intellectual in his comments, rather just – very low grade – sneering.
His frothing rather than directed spitting is not going to help any problems with self-confidence: if he has a lack of it this is evidence that given his nature and potential he has at least some sense of reality.
Hopefully in this case, this Perlwitz will feel compelled to actually contribute something meaningful to a dialogue – if perhaps only as part of his terms of employment. It can hardly be good for The Cause to have such a low level of achievement so visible. He might get sacked.
John Whitman says:
April 9, 2013 at 9:43 am
In the anonymous situation, there is a significant inherent lack of knowledge to verify the intellectual integrity of those being anonymous.
Therefore, in principle, I discount somewhat the intellectual worth of comments made by anonymous commenters with whom I have dialogs with.
=============================================
Sorry, but I rather disagree. On internet forums, in most cases, you never know who you are talking to even when there is a “real name” attached. For example, just because you use the name “John Whitman” doesn’t automatically mean that IRL you really are someone with the name John Whitman and whether you are or not makes no difference to the content of what you post.
What is important is the merits of the arguements being put forward. If those arguements are good, the fact that they were posted by a JZ123 or a BabyRocksDaHouse is irrelevant, and if those arguements are bad, the fact that they are posted by a Tony Smith or a Bobby Wilson is equally irrelvant. Having a real name attached to a post no more makes it a good or worthy post than having a Psuedonym attached to it makes it a bad or unworthy post. It’s the content of the post, not the name of the poster, that truely matters.
all IMHO of course.
.
@ur momisugly Frank K. says:
April 9, 2013 at 9:06 am
It is very true that basic accountability has gone missing, and I would say the actual matching of proposed endeavors to the priorities of reality.
I think your point about the whole re-evaluation of the value and point of these things is part of a looming reappraisal of the entire justification for the current societal structure. Its hitting the wall across the board.
atheok says:
April 9, 2013 at 9:44 am
I rather like the idea of Judith Curry applying for and achieving the position Hansen is leaving! She knows her science; Judith is strict enough to aim for accurate data no matter who it pisses off and she is tough enough to deal with the RC hooligans who play games with telling the public the true unvarnished unadjusted truth!
===================================
Indeed, I like the idea too. I’ve been impressed with Judith’s integrity and levelheadedness.
@John Whitman says:
April 9, 2013 at 9:43 am
As a basic human instinct that people should know who they are dealing with, and that people must stand behind what they say and do, I think that’s correct. That is essential for accountability in normal dealings with others.
In this situation however, the nature of the exchanges, and the nature of the internet, create a different situation.
As I said above, whatever my designation, I can only be judged on the actual content of what I contribute. Or rather, the actual content is what must be judged. I find this a huge positive in such a site.
“Knowing” someone in itself colors peoples response. It distorts it when consideration is supposed to be given to the substance of what they say. To some degree that will occur on a site like this as people come to know others by whatever appellation: xyz identifies as certainly as Joe Blow.
I have seen on other threads the appearance of a “name” that people recognize and have a preconception of. I don’t think that is at all useful for open discourse.
There is the fact that if people attach their real names to something, even in the ether as here, they are likely to be more inclined to say what they would say in person. At least theoretically. Unless a person is trying to manipulate, I can’t see that in practice there will be any difference.
The person may be freer – that is, more sincere – if they do not have a sense that this has the same “social” character as personal involvement. Because just as social relations demand accountability they also tend to demand restraint. What I have found is that those who are manipulative – that is, hiding, whatever they call themselves – become apparent in a way that is often obscured in “real” interactions.
Where I do think it may become problematic is where someones claims are based on something other than their comments – but isn’t that just argument from authority? If someone claims to be relaying specific information based on their position, then to be able to confirm that means something. But this is still a matter of trust. If actual evidence is proffered it doesn’t matter what their “name” is. If it is not, it is necessary to go by reputation – established on the site, or through other means – or simply to accept that the authority of a – claimed – position is sufficient.
I think if a person uses the same appellation within a particular area of discussion or site, which so far as I know can be controlled by the site moderator, then it is clear who is “speaking” and a person cannot assume multiple identities for whatever reason.
I actually am getting an increasing conviction that this type of interaction over the internet – whether on facebook, twitter or here – is actually forcing people to have to be aware of personal character and be able to judge it in a way that has perhaps never existed before. And to look more appraisingly at what is said. If so, this is enormously beneficial.
So will you discount my comments here now on the basis that I am jc rather than a name – even though I am perfectly free to make up a “name” and you can never know that?
Are you really John Whitman? If you are, how does that mean anything to me?
John Endicott says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:55 am
If Dr. Judith Curry became director, they could move GISS lock, stock, and barrel down to Atlanta, Georgia (Ga. Tech). Think of the cost savings…I believe most of the NASA staff would love the move (and they could get their 32 oz big gulp drinks from the local mini marts without running afoul of the law!).
@ur momisugly atheok says:
April 9, 2013 at 9:44 am
You are quite right about the thread. The “Perlwitz obfuscator” has perhaps succeeded in his intent. Maybe that’s all it takes to justify his pay-check. But its difficult to know at this point what else there is to say directly about Hansen or his replacement. Maybe settling for Perlwitz as proxy and Champion is the only option.
Mark Bofill says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:15 am
Real motive? More snip fodder for his blog?
————-
Follow up:
If you look at Jan’s blog,
http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/
You’ll see that he’s indeed obtained the material he wanted in order to write another blog post for all / both of his two readers.
Whatever floats his boat I guess.
In fairness to Jan he has come to the right place(biggest climate discussion site on the internet) to raise his profile
Job done.
Lot’s of dodgy climate preachers are positioning themselves to be the next Hansen, the print your own money climate cult position is irresistible.
@ur momisugly Mark Bofill says:
April 9, 2013 at 2:33 pm
I just looked at his blog as you linked to. I hadn’t registered it when I previously looked but it is entitled “Thought Fragments”!
Some primitive self awareness then! Maybe visiting WUWT is part of some remedial course he is required to undertake. Although the situation is clearly hopeless.
He is still going on about about “fake skeptics”. He threatens to expose the gory truth of how his genius is being denied by censorship on this thread – latter.
They pay for this?
– – – – – – – –
John Endicott,
I appreciate your comment as it extends the dialog.
I am willing to stand by all ‘John Whitman’ statements which I can prove are mine. I am willing to engage in a verification process with you to prove I an the John Whitman who made them. I can prove I am really John Whitman since my birth. No problema.
All non-anonymous will do that on request if they are being honest. That is not a problem.
Shall we start that process? Let me know if you are willing, I am.
As to your point that it does not matter who is making an argument, it does matter to me who is making an argument, because an argument based on problem foundations can seem correct but unless the foundations are clearly known then significant info is missing that prevent identifying where possible incorrect areas are. Therefore, you need to know the whole person, that is his world view / philosophy. To know him fully, you need his identity. Give identity and I can show you the persons intellectual integrity.
John
– – – – – – –
jc,
Thanks for your comment. It was quite impersonally phrased. : ) That is difficult to achieve.
The integrated mind of a person makes an argument. If you isolate an argument from the total integration, you lose info on the basis of the argument. You need identity to do the due diligent detective work on fundamental concepts and root premise. It is integrity identification. I think it is necessary in epistemic contexts.
John
@ur momisugly John Whitman says:
April 9, 2013 at 8:04 pm
“The integrated mind of a person makes an argument.”
That is reasonable as to the source of an argument. But in communicating any point or position the “integrated mind” is only ever approximated, or is revealed over stages, and then never fully.
What I think you are actually alluding to is the ability to arrive at a discussion with, what seems to the person, a confident basis for preconceptions. And/or as an exchange progresses, the belief that what is not explicitly said can be inferred from an understanding derived from something other than what has been said in the specific context. In other words, a sort of “short cut”.
This is normal and unavoidable in day-to-day life. If someone has come to believe that their local mechanic is both knowledgeable and trustworthy, then they will have a great deal more confidence than in a stranger, and will “take on trust” a great deal of what is said. So this is primarily a social relationship, not one that explores issues that exist beyond both participants.
But every “short cut” carries unstated assumptions. For a social interaction this is actually a major part of the social glue. But it always comes at a cost. There may be an outstanding mechanic around the corner who never gets the opportunity to demonstrate that.
So the info you fear loosing, is actually a set of assumptions that make you more, or less, comfortable with accepting propositions that have not been fully explained or tested.
I actually think, that what you are proposing as being essential to the type of discourse here, is part of the poison of contemporary life. There is an increasing inability to distinguish between the personal and objective. To automatically validate a position, or a supposed capacity, purely on who is saying it.
When you say you need to know identity to do detective work on fundamental concepts and root premise, I disagree. That is precisely what you don’t need. It can only lead to a more limited understanding to the degree it is relied on.
What I think you are referring to is the ability to more quickly identify “where someones coming from”. This is a convenience that saves time but must always, without exception, lead to a less exact comprehension because the integrated mind of the other will never be fully grasped, and “bits” will always be left implicit and therefore not examined. Which can only lead to error, minor or major.
It could be said that scientific method itself is based on this recognition and the need to exclude assumptions about the integrity of any participant regardless of previous achievements.
I would say, you are demonstrating the power of preconception here. You have said you will downgrade your inclination to consider what I say here as legitimate based on this comment not carrying a “name”. Is this reasonable?
You say above to John Endicott that to know someone fully, you need his identity. This where I find your position confused. You are conflating knowing someone with knowing what they say and why. It is not necessary that you know me fully to judge the significance or otherwise of what I write here. I actually think such a position is an impediment.
So I must accept that what I have said here will be, in your mind, compromised. But don’t worry, I don’t take it personally!
jc pretty much covered most of what I would have, only in much more elegate prose. which really leaves me with the following point to hit on:
John Whitman says: “As to your point that it does not matter who is making an argument, it does matter to me who is making an argument,”
All I can say in response to that is: It *shouldn’t*. And indeed, that’s one of the very huge problems with Climate Science as it stands today. the CAGW inner-circle automatically discounts what someone they “know” is a skeptic has to say, not based on any merit or lack thereof, but solely on the basis that they are “known climate-deniers” and then do their utmost to block papers from those skeptical sources from being published (as illustrated quite disturbingly in the climategate e-mails) again not based on the merits or lack there of those paper, but solely based on who wrote them.
– – – – – – – –
jc,
First, my use of ‘impersonal’ as to your previous comment’s mode of expression was meant to be very complementary to you. : ) I meant by it your admirable absence of personal focus on an antagonist.
To respond to your question ‘Is this reasonable?’ regarding my intellectually discounting the anonymous commenters / posters, the key is indeed what is to be expected when using reason in arguing? When integration of world view / philosophy is withheld from an basis of an isolated / segregated argument it is discounted against a case where nothing is withheld from the connections to the total integration. The integrated view is a nothing less than a person’s identity. That is reason applied.
The intellectual price the anonymous inherently pay for non- identity is significant in my view.
Jc, I do not dislike you for being anonymous.
John
John Whitman says:
April 10, 2013 at 10:48 am
Sorry for being somewhat tardy in responding, I was a bit waylaid by other threads when I came earlier.
I probably wouldn’t bother with this, there seeming to be little point, except that you are obviously laboring under the impression that I must be personally affronted in some way. I’m not.
Firstly I am surprised by your use of the word “antagonist”. There is no antagonism on my part. I don’t even see you as a protagonist.
An issue arose. If I didn’t see it as having some legitimacy as a point of discussion I would have said so or most probably ignored it.
You obviously see it as in itself something that has a moral or personal nature. I don’t. Even if I did, I would still approach it as something to be looked at objectively and justified or not in those terms. It is not personal for me. Such things have an existence independently of me.
It is only as I started to write this that I realized that an element of your thinking must still be attached to the comments of the entity “Jan P Perlwitz” which raised this, prompting my response. I had actually forgotten about him. He has nothing to do with this issue.
My response to him was based entirely on what he showed himself to be. His use of this issue was obviously part of that. But unlike any of the particulars of his evasions and general low behavior, this issue exists independently of him. If it didn’t I would have dealt with it in terms particular to him and then forgotten about it.
There is no connection at all between any contempt I might have shown to said being, which is in itself not personal in a broad sense, it is a specific response to elements of a persons behavior which is based on general standards – I don’t now and didn’t then have any interest in or feelings about the “personal” Perlwitz at all – and my view of this issue and anyone participating in a discussion of it.
That said, I am disappointed by your response here. You essentially re-iterate your previous position. You do not address the substance of my general comments or John Endicott’s specific example. You raised this issue for discussion, seeking to extend my original comment, and invited others to participate. You are not doing your bit.
I do not see your above re-iteration as evasion. You have not attempted to introduce red-herrings, obscure previous statements, or redefine words or phrases. Rather I would describe it as something like studied neglect.
Your, correct, identification of what you refer to as the integrated mind as being a significant factor in what people say or claim is, as I see it, being displayed here. I conclude that you have held these views for a considerable time, and that they have a moral component to them which reinforces them beyond an intellectual basis and makes them significant to you as being representative of character which exists independently of any practical reality that can be observed. And that you have come to this by conflating probity and confidence in social relationships with integrity in observation and argument.
These are not the same, and to rely on personal association which is in fact what you advocate – it is not possible to know the “integrated mind” of anyone without close association which implies approval, and this will always have a social element – will invariably result in misjudgements, lack of clarity, unreasonable favoritism and outright corruption.
You may like to consider the fact that much of human knowledge when arrived at by co-operation has occurred when the participants were far apart, rarely or never met each other, and had no real way of knowing the other as they “really were”. A name was just a name. No verification of other character elements possible. Such people and processes created Civilization. I’ll take that over the contemporary fetish for the personal.
As to the “anonymous” being beggared in intellectual access or comprehension, I can’t say I’ve noticed it. From what I’ve seen in life, and which it is childishly easy to demonstrate intellectually, the people who are intellectually impoverished are those uninterested or made incapable by refusal to allow questioning of their preconceptions, let alone abandon them even when they are palpable inadequate.
This is, on your stated position, a waste of time, or would be if in fact I viewed this as “personal” or you as a protagonist. However, apart from the fact someone else may find it of interest the main point for me is that it obliges me to firstly evaluate and then express an opinion on a position. In this case, on this issue, I had not done that to any extent previously, at least deliberately. That is why not just on this issue, but any, I take an interest.
You have not offered a clear statement on questions asked of you. Personally, for someone to use as a reason for not dealing with something, that someone is anonymous, I take as a very clear statement as to the constitution of their “integrated mind”. So regardless of appellation judgements can and will be made.
To be clear, when I say personally I do mean in judgement not feelings.
And . . .
– – – – – – – – –
jc & John Endicott
Appreciate your comments.
jc, I merely used the term antagonist as in the classical literature / formal debate sense where one side is an antagonist and the other side is a protagonist. There is no perforative inference toward you or the subject matter on my part by using antagonist (protagonist). We disagree on anonymity, so one of us is a protagonist and the other is an antagonist on the issue . . . take your pick which one you want as yours. : )
Again, let me reiterate that I consider anonymous argument without an integrated mind identified as an incomplete epistemic process. It has lessor intellectual value to me than where the integrated mind is fully disclosed for complete identification as is the case for the non-anonymous situation. You suggest both situations are epistemologically equal, I say they are not.
jc, as to your suggestion that my position has some elements of a moral basis, none of my comments have stated or inferred a moral basis for my intellectual discounting of the anonymous. Morality, is not a part of my argument with you.
I suppose it is possible that there could be a moral element, but I have not looked at it in my argument with you. Are you introducing the subject of morality as important to your position? If so then why?
I think a full integrated mind context is essential in the pursuit of knowledge, since human knowledge is hierarchical. We need all the building blocks of ones knowledge to inform on an argument.
jc, as to your discussion of ‘names’, identity is not in any essential sense a ‘name’. A name is an arbitrary label, as such it has little value to contribute to one’s intellectual identity.
John
@ur momisugly John Whitman says:
April 11, 2013 at 4:45 pm
My mistake apparently in translating your use of the word “antagonist” as being of a personal nature.
Given that in the message I responded to, you assured me that you didn’t dislike me (personally) for being anonymous, a response in you that had never occurred to me as being possible, and that in the previous message you sent you thought it necessary to congratulate me on being “impersonal” – which I found perplexing and revealing of your mind, not mine – I could hardly have thought otherwise.
Any suggestion by me that you have a moral component – or social, which you do not mention – is an attempt to find a rationale for your position in things you have not stated. Because you state very little.
Your attempt to pretend that I am introducing morality as some sort of basis for any points I have made about my position I will describe as sophistry, although it is more accurately described in less generous terms.
As I said, seeking reasons outside the ones offered by you for your attitude – which is what it is – became obligatory.
Because your position is nonsensical. Devoid of sense.
You demonstrate that yourself in your last paragraph when you explicitly state that a name has no meaning.
This is the entire point of this discussion.
This is what both John Endicott and I maintained at the outset.
And you obviously do this as a feeble justification for your claims to the primacy of your attitude towards the integrity of the “integrated mind” in this issue, which is completely irrelevant.
You thus escalate your position, claims and attitude from the nonsensical to the preposterous.
I would suggest that in future, before you invite discussion on any topic, you examine your readiness to actually examine the issues, rather than see it as an opportunity to just assert your view. You will save other peoples time, and possibly some discomfort for yourself.
Message for Anthony
I have remembered seeing in a reply you appended to a comment by the Perlwitz entity at April 8th 7.25pm above, where he thought he had delivered a mortal blow to me, that you, rising to the defense of fact and incidentally me, referred to me as JC rather than jc.
I don’t suppose it matters, but a few weeks ago I first noticed a JC appear (he/she may well have been around longer) which gave me a start: it was as if a doppleganger had appeared.
I guess nothing can be done to avoid potential confusion, but just so you know, there are both the humble and the bold on the site. In the end its no different from having a John Brown and a John Browne, so if it has any importance at all, I guess people figure it out.
With your new system I assume this will never be read anyway!
REPLY: Oh I read it, and you are wrong when you say that “I guess nothing can be done to avoid potential confusion”. Sure there is, use your real name like many people here do. After all, if you think your opinion is important, surely you are willing to stand behind it by putting your name to it? Otherwise it’s just another anonymous opinion and not worth as much. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Anthony Watts
You sound aggrieved. If you are, is it entirely to do with this question of “anonymity”? If there is anything else you will presumably explain what it is.
As to the question of a “name” or otherwise, if you have a strong opinion on that, with identifiable reasons that you think constitute a coherent position, why didn’t you contribute to the above?
Or why don’t you now?
As a result of the above I have actually come to the diametrically opposed position. That having “names” in anything that claims to be a dispassionate investigation can never be beneficial and will almost invariably be detrimental.
Such as in peer review.
I even considered submitting a comment suggesting that people could be given a randomly allocated identifier for each thread. As a matter of certainty, by minimizing the personal, the quality of exchanges will be improved. i think the above exchange with john Whitman illustrates that. My very strong impression with him is that he cannot bring himself to actually acknowledge what he himself says for reasons of “personal dignity”. Because of a name.
The reason I did not submit this is because I realized that for many regulars it is BECAUSE the exchanges are personal, having developed this character of familiarity over time, that they ARE regulars. That is, WUWT serves as “social media” as well as a focal point for discussion.
As I made clear above – and here – I can see absolutely no reason to assume a “name”. The tone adopted by you of something being intrinsicly underhand in not having this “name” I regard as being in itself fundamentally underhand. If you can advance actual reasons – rather than this “peer pressure” with no observable rationale, then do so.
Otherwise accept with good grace that it is your personal preference for whatever reason and don’t judge others for not sharing it.
If that is so intolerable, and you cannot come up with any actual reasons for your preference then it is your site and you can demand “names” which, whether bogus or real, will presumably satisfy you, and you can expel those unwilling to comply.
As I said in the above exchanges I was ready to consider the issue on its merits. I have. I do not acceed to mindless bullying. If you want to ban further comments from me, do so. In the absence of any tangible justification, you will define yourself in the process.
REPLY: Golly, what an overreaction. Look, its really simple. If you want to delineate yourself from another commenter, change your handle, If you want to elevate yourself, use your name. If you want to whine about your situation, do it into a paper bag because I’m simply not interested. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Anthony
Suggestion: Have a post where you explain the basis for the “elevated” nature of the Named.