TBYJ: Call it 'Colin Brooks vs Pirata' by all means. (What they called me in Spain in 1982 when they heard my last name.)

diog: Best to quote me if you want to argue. What you've said here is nonsense. That points to the first discussion I put up on this subject, which specifically mentions Orwell, and would be a better place to debate it further. Unlike Colin Brooks, who seems to want to make ex-cathedra statements that cannot be challenged, I have no problem with discussing this area from time to time. But if you want to disagree please quote what I've actually written. For instance, my last statement on this subject was:

the vast majority [on this blog] agree with me that pseudonymity is great but that it can be abused.

Feel free to dispute any part of this. That's part of what Bishop Hill is for. Thanks in advance.

We completely agree on that. That's why I've always been mystified by your criticisms of me. I don't advocate action against pseudonyms; I only advocate that those using pseudonyms should do so responsibly and appropriately.

Sure. And if you carry a gun in certain parts of the United States, where it is legal to do so, behaving responsibly and appropriately is defined differently than if you're not. Likewise I see using a pseudonym on a blog giving someone greater power to destroy those not doing so - particularly in reputation and relationship terms - and thus that this choice entails greater responsibility. Those using real names also have responsibilities but they are not as onerous.

I should add that I welcome this opportunity to put the record the straight but that because of the past I do not trust you an inch. There are two other nyms that currently regularly post to BH, that seem to be on the 'sceptic' side, about whom I would say the same. I think it will take years, if ever, for the trust to be restored. But that doesn't mean we can't helpfully correct the crassest stupidities of the past.

Dung:

You apparently believe in the precautionary principle and want to make pseuds second class web citizens because they "might" cause problems.

Give me a break. I don't want to "make nyms second class web citizens". For one thing I don't have power over the world wide web or over any climate blog. But I wouldn't even if I had. What I said was this:

... if you carry a gun in certain parts of the United States, where it is legal to do so, behaving responsibly and appropriately is defined differently than if you're not. Likewise I see using a pseudonym on a blog giving someone greater power to destroy those not doing so - particularly in reputation and relationship terms - and thus that this choice entails greater responsibility.

Are those who choose to carry guns automatically made second class citizens by the special laws that then apply to them? Of course not. And are you saying nyms have no extra responsibility because of what they can do to the reputation and relationships of those who use their real name? It's fine if you are. I just want clarity.

I also do not look at the web, or at Bishop Hill, and think that nyms "might" cause problems. I think that trolls cause problems and I can't think of a single troll that doesn't use a nym. We are dealing every day with that. And I think that you Lord Dung, although I would not call you a troll in the context of Bishop Hill and its concern for truth in climate, have caused enormous problems. I think you've had ulterior motives for your attacks on me. I think that your stupid name helps you to achieve evil ends. I don't think there's one thing you've ever said that I've really learned from here. But I only feel this negative about a handful of nyms on BH. The rest of the congregation can be very valuable indeed, nyms included. They are not second class citizens here, nor would they have become so if my proposals earlier in this thread had been wholly adopted.

But I've moved on in my own approach in any case. You presumably didn't pick that up, given your obsession with me and with so many things that I've neither said nor believed?

Dung (2:27): I was struck that our host didn't intervene in the interesting and lengthy debate on this in Motivated reasoning and the climate scientist starting fifteen days ago. Has Andrew communicated with you that he considered all those comments about nymity off topic, from Richard Betts and all, but just didn't get round to saying so?

mikeh:

This seems to me to be a totally sterile debate.

It's clearly not a sterile debate because, apart from this first sentence, you just made an important and helpful contribution to it! I do wonder why so many try to close down an important area of discussion, often with mockery and derision, as if this, unlike atmospheric physics or the missing heat, in, or more likely many light years away, from the oceans, is a subject so hard that it is impossible to make progress with it. I sometime wonder if there aren't further analogies with climate obfuscation, that vested interest is involved. May people of all naming conventions ponder that intriguing point and get back to me :)

Here's a key example of a well-known nym trying to close down reasonable discussion through the crudest of ad-homs towards someone who it seems safe to assume is using his real name. Roger Clague had written this exactly two weeks ago:

Posters who don't use there real names should be especially careful to stick to science blog rules. Such as good logic with numbers, and no ad hominems.

An anonymous charge of 'lack of courage' is, ad hom and also, as Betts pointed out, ridiculous.

What I find amusing is the climate science profs, Betts, Curry and Edwards motivated to compete for the honor ( and rewards ) of leading the warmist climb-down.

The person who had made the anonymous charge of 'lack of courage' against Richard Betts was Foxgoose and this was all he could find to say in response:

People who make up their own rules for games they play with others risk looking like pompous idiots.

Talk about taking out the man without reference to the ball! And note that Roger has never made any of these points on this discussion thread or any other, that I can remember. I know there are many others that, quite independently of Richard Drake, think as he does.

But to your point:

To the blog reader there is no difference between an obvious pseudonym and an apparently "real" name. Unless I have met the person in question - or know of him/her via the media, other blogs, etc - "real" names are just as anonymous as pseudonyms. I am certainly not going to try and check them out.

Every blog reader is different in this regard. Andrew Montford and his closest friends are no doubt in a privileged position and rightly so. In the end everything depends on the very complex nature of relationships in the real world, from which the idea of 'real name' gets its force, and online. You don't I assume to feel the need to track down Ross McKitrick if he makes a post here, as he did again recently. But with other names there is not the network of trusted intermediaries to establish in your mind that the name is real. I completely get that. You might think this of Richard Drake. Josh, on the other hand, has met me and would I think be surprised to find that either the 'Richard' or the 'Drake' were an outright deception! But even that is always possible. Think of spies in deep cover or those in protection programmes for their own safety. We tend I think to take a probabilistic approach to these things. And the network of those who have met each other, even just on Bishop Hill, is pretty extensive. It's not as great an issue as it seems, in most cases. It becomes more of an issue when someone writes a lot, especially if it is tending to divert multiple threads. But once again those using real names - or even those using what sound like real names - are seldom the culprits in such cases.

In summary, I don't think the problem you raise is insurmountable and it doesn't render the debate sterile.

But Foxgoose was calling Roger Clague pompous, not me. Do you agree with anything Roger wrote? Doesn't his comment show that the rest of your tired cliches about me are false? For there are others that think as I do. They have learned though that they get their heads bitten off the moment they say so. That is what I find so objectionable about what Foxgoose did in this case and you have done in so many others. It strongly reminds me of how The Team deals with dissenters from climate orthodoxy. Appeal to a false consensus about something on which you and I in fact mostly agree. Is it 97% of everyone on this blog that makes me an outcast, are you finally saying. Such dishonest dealing cannot be right at Bishop Hill, of all places.

Barry either got that wrong or wanted to make a separate point. I have no issues with what he said or indeed with my response. It's completely clear from the context that Foxgoose was referring to Roger. Do you think this was appropriate, given how little we've heard from this particular person in the past? He make his view crystal clear and it should have been afforded much more careful consideration. It also gives the lie to your tedious shtick about my isolation. I am more determined than some, true, but it's because I don't like what are in fact mainstream views demonised. Your 97% is like Mr Cook's a consensus without an object. For you and I agree on almost everything, as our discussions earlier today show. You want to demonise me, for some reasons of your own, but it isn't going to wash. Best to give up now.

I want meanwhile to come at some of these issues and a number of other important ones on a new thread called Reputations and rapport. It would not be true to say that I wish to see you there. But I'm sure I can cope with that and any other number of other eventualities.

I'm not imposing anything. You are trying to bully me so that anyone who agrees with my view, or anything close, like Roger Clague and many others, remains silent. As I said, best to give up now. Even if you don't your obvious lies about what I have said will be your undoing.

Thanks for liking me but I think that's barmy TBYJ. Why should either Colin Brooks or Richard Drake be banned for this brisk interaction on a lowly BH discussion thread? I mean, seriously, why? Is that your idea of freedom of expression? If so you strike me as being like a would-be surgeon who faints at the first sight of blood - and never overcomes this tendency. Especially as we've shown that we agree on the vast majority of issues. I don't trust Dung an inch, it's true, but I would never argue that he should be banned. Why then should I be?

I hope I will always have a go at pseuds! But I certainly won't always criticise nyms - as usual I will agree with some and disagree with others. And in a few cases - as Stephen Richards did here and Richard Betts did here, just in the last sixteen days - I will mention when their use of pseudonymity does not sit well with the tendentious, defamatory or plain stupid things they've chosen to say. Get ready my valiant foe, for I've given you fair warning. And while you're at it, just for consistency, why don't you issue the same fatwa against Messrs Clague, Betts and Richards?