Discussion > Real names or pseudonyms?
I know. But you need to provide examples. And if they're not relevant to this thread you (and we) have a problem. But you could collate some and send me an email, if you care that much about my moral and mental improvement. Colin has my email.
Richard Drake
Your reply above highlights what is wrong with your approach. Tosser.
TheBigYinJames
Thanks for the examples, as requested!
Richard Drake
Richard Drake, I just don't understand why you keep flogging this by now skeletal horse. We all know what you think. And, as TBYJ accurately noted, you have a terminal case of needing to have the last word, however trite your comment might be.
I will restate my case. I absolutely reserve the right to make whatever comments I see fit to make under a nym on any blog that allows it, including calling out public figures or private individuals who use their names (most of whom are unknown to me anyway). If people like you mark me down for that, fine. I will not be sobbing into my pillow tonight because of it.
Why is this such a big deal for you? Who died and put you in charge of blog behaviour? It is up to the owners of sites, their moderators (if any) and readers to make judgements about people's bona fides.
Here comes the next "last word" ... he just can't help himself.
johanna
Proof of concept :)
It's not a last word thing johanna, it feels much more like the vicar at the door of the church saying thanks for coming or the family of the bride and groom at a wedding reception saying the same. One thing I'm trying to do is to normalise this discussion, in other words that nobody ever feels the need, ever again, to come onto this thread to say "What the fuck is this thread doing here still?" A lot of people obviously do feel that need and feel it very deeply but I have to admit I find that part hugely amusing. If you don't like this thread, or used to like it but have come to find it boring or disgusting or whatever, well, other alternatives are available.
The other factor at the moment, which I've mentioned above and elsewhere, is that I'm expecting to go into BH hibernation shortly, for some weeks or months, as I did earlier in the year. After that there will be many threads like this that I will not even be reading. Others can then say whatever they like here and compete to be the last one to do so, safe in the knowledge that I won't even be in the runners and riders.
As for what you say about your own choice to use a nym, well, bully for you. I mean that seriously my girl, bully for you. I've said that I think nymity is great for BH. How many more ways can I say that? You've used that option. I have no issue with you doing that. That isn't remotely what this is about. (It might have been for Paul Matthews originally but it was never my own point here. As we pass 300 posts how terrific it would be for people to get that in their heads.)
Here are the things I think we all agree on:
1. There are some limits on what nyms should say about real people here.
2. There are some limits about what real names should say about real people here.
We agree that some things are fine to say, for anyone. We agree that some things are not right and helpful for anyone to say - even if the host chooses not to delete them.
So what is the key difference between Richard Drake and the 97.1% of 'everyone on this blog' that find his views so despicable? You tell me. You don't have to tell me in fact. But I am very interested to be completely clear where the difference lies, that has caused such consternation.
Richard Drake
Dick
None of us need to agree anything because this blog is owned by Andrew Montford and your opinions about how it should be run are totally irrelevant.
Correction; obviously your views are the most important things in your life but you need to recognise that others do not share that opinion.
Dung
Since you have once again completely misrepresented my views, and those of others, e.g.
"Here are the things I think we all agree on:
1. There are some limits on what nyms should say about real people here.
2. There are some limits about what real names should say about real people here."
I can only conclude that you are more to be pitied than condemned. This desperate need for attention at all costs indicates that we do not see you at your best.
johanna
> it feels much more like the vicar at the door of the church saying thanks for coming
We've already got a Bishop, we don't need a vicar trying to take over.
Nial (or is it?)
Nial
From now on I count Richard amongst our resident trolls and will no longer be feeding him with the oxygen of thread space.
TheBigYinJames
for what it's worth.....I value contributions on his site from folks such as Rhoda, BigYinJames. ThinkingScientist,even Hector Pascal with his unlikely name. They are factual and concise. I do not rate the postings of people such as Vangel because they are verbose and obviously wrong. This Drake guy says he has never seen a post by Vangel - thus Drake is an odd duck.
As for me, my comments are either technical on financial or ecomomic posts or satirical or irritating - especially when trolls are involved. However I do tend to exasperate trolls such as BBD and BitBucket. I am afraid that the great Richard Drake CBE comes acrooss as a sycophantic troll of the kind no one would employ. Check these quotes:
Richard Drake
Posted Jul 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Reply
I promise I won’t do this again until I at least finish the article but
Although Callendar’s qualifications would undoubtedly lead a modern Real Climate or Skeptical Science reader to dismiss him as suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome …
has to be one of the great lines of Climate Audit history. As an obvious fellow-sufferer with Callendar I’m well pleased.
Richard Drake
Posted Jul 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Reply
Tom Desabla:
As climate is the focus of this blog, it is understandable that readers feel that this scientific “regression” may be unique to climate science, but rest assured, it isn’t.
A suggestive way of putting it, because for any software engineer worth his salt what Steve has shown beyond doubt is that climate science, not least its authoritative expressions in IPCC reports, has been atrocious in regression testing of its central general circulation and other models, taking that important term in its broadest and most important sense.
There have been true believers gnawing away at other fields for decades too – economics, psychology and others too.
I can’t speak for psychology, as my therapist would surely confirm, but on economics I’m with srp‘s excellent post on Bishop Hill three days ago. Despite all its conflicts of interest the dismal science surely does a better job at maintaining some integrity than the puffed-up one for which Guy Callendar was such an excellent but neglected pioneer. Not of course that this is setting the bar higher than Lilliputian.
snip – overdeditorialzing
• Richard Drake
Posted Jul 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM | Permalink
Tom: Thanks. My advice is never to interpret use of the Zamboni as your thoughts being “less than welcome,” just that the editor felt they weren’t right for a particular thread. There have been useful analogies made between climate and the credit crunch that I have seen and been involved in but they don’t happen all the time.
The concern at the moment is about regression testing. This should have been done all along (as Steve is effect putting right very belatedly now) and reported all along, most of all in the IPCC reports. That there is nothing is quite simply a gaping hole in the whole story. That is worth everyone who reads this taking in.
• Richard Drake
Posted Jul 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Reply
Ha. I have to say – through gritted teeth – that you fully deserve this fun at our expense. But now I want the answer!
Richard Drake
Posted Sep 30, 2012 at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Reply
Mann immediately forwarded Schmidt’s email to Jones, and in true Lewandowsky conspiracy style, presumed that information on their plans to reveal the provenance of the IPCC 1990 graphic had been leaked to me and that my motive for the blog post was to scoop them
Weird. Maybe we’ve got so used to this kind of thinking from The Team that we forget how weird it is. I know the conventional explanation is that “your auditing skills make them fear funding kills”, as Keith neatly puts it, but for me it doesn’t remotely do the job. Where did the paranoia come from? Irrational ideas can have sources, just like graphs.
Richard Drake
Posted Jul 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Reply
Tom Desabla:
As climate is the focus of this blog, it is understandable that readers feel that this scientific “regression” may be unique to climate science, but rest assured, it isn’t.
A suggestive way of putting it, because for any software engineer worth his salt what Steve has shown beyond doubt is that climate science, not least its authoritative expressions in IPCC reports, has been atrocious in regression testing of its central general circulation and other models, taking that important term in its broadest and most important sense.
There have been true believers gnawing away at other fields for decades too – economics, psychology and others too.
I can’t speak for psychology, as my therapist would surely confirm, but on economics I’m with srp‘s excellent post on Bishop Hill three days ago. Despite all its conflicts of interest the dismal science surely does a better job at maintaining some integrity than the puffed-up one for which Guy Callendar was such an excellent but neglected pioneer. Not of course that this is setting the bar higher than Lilliputian.
snip – overdeditorialzing
• Richard Drake
Posted Jul 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM | Permalink
Tom: Thanks. My advice is never to interpret use of the Zamboni as your thoughts being “less than welcome,” just that the editor felt they weren’t right for a particular thread. There have been useful analogies made between climate and the credit crunch that I have seen and been involved in but they don’t happen all the time.
The concern at the moment is about regression testing. This should have been done all along (as Steve is effect putting right very belatedly now) and reported all along, most of all in the IPCC reports. That there is nothing is quite simply a gaping hole in the whole story. That is worth everyone who reads this taking in.
May I start by saying how much I've appreciated BBD's contributions to this blog recently and hope they continue.
ZBD (long lost sister of BBD or bouncy character in the Magic Roundabout, the choice is yours) has I fear asked a detailed question to which I don't have the answer. Patrick M is right to point to Steve McIntyre's post of 1st Jan, “Sent loads of station data to Scott”. Based on the Climategate emails - and perhaps other evidence known to Steve, such as personal comms from Webster - Steve convinces me that Phil Jones sent station data to Rutherford and Webster, data that he refused to send to a number of 'outsiders' - including Roger Pielke as an outsider, a detail I've just taken in for the first time. What I don't see in the main post is cast-iron proof that Jones broke confidentiality agreements in sending some (or loads of) station data. I certainly don't remember anyone making the point at the time that in fact confidentiality agreements had not been broken by Jones. But I'm not offering to trawl through that thread to check this. Even that would not furnish the proof that ZBD is asking for. And you know what, I don't really care. What matters is that once outsiders like Steve were allowed to shed light on it the Hockey Stick was shown to be terrible science - and this was not revealed before, either by peer review or normal scientific competitiveness. The rest is peripheral.
Along these lines, Terence Kealey has just provided a highly realistic survey of the history of science for the Global Warming Policy Foundation entitled What Does Climategate Say About Science? I've learned a lot from it - I especially appreciated the example of Lyell holding out against the (somewhat) young earth creationists of his day. But the whole thing deserves attention, as helpful balance against counsels of perfection in criticising climate scientists. I'll be interested to know what others here think.
Nov 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM | Richard Drake
diogenes
I decided not to look at this thread between "Sep 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM" and now, as there were other things to do in my life, there were the Australian elections for us all to consider (my note of best wishes to johanna being written regardless of whatever she might have said here) and I thought what I'd recently written in the discussions Five glorious years, Does Bishop Hill just talk to the converted? and Reputations and rapport were more important than anything here. But I doubted they would get attention compared to these meagre pickings.
I predicted in my mind the comments about vicars and bishops, thanks. I didn't expect diogenes to dig out all those old quotes. I'm not sure what they prove but
Richard Drake CBE [as] ... a sycophantic troll of the kind no one would employ
does not seem the inescapable conclusion even from these. It's interesting to be reminded of my positive comments about BBD on Nov 19, 2010 though. I remember thinking the guy was good value for a short while. Then, as I said in response to Shub in October 2012:
It was the trampling of the innocent when left to his own devices that immediately put this guy into a different category - that plus the way he evolved so quickly from pretty reasonable to hardened paranoid, as one can see from his tirades against the GWPF on Climate Etc today.
I have been angrily confronted on this thread but not I think for any real misdeeds. Calling me a troll seems useful shorthand for "I disagree with Richard Drake but can't be bothered to say about what." The misdeeds, if any, were by Stephen Richards and Richard Betts. Follow those links and read to the end of each thread to understand what Dung meant by
Completely against the express wishes of the Bish and completely against the views of almost all the people who commented in this thread; you are once again inserting your views on pseudonyms into threads on the topic pages.
Was I right to defend the right of Stephen and Richard to say what they did, to Anon and Foxgoose respectively? That's all this silly irruption is about - comments on just two threads out of 152 since I returned to BH on 12th July! In neither case did the Bish himself complain, either publicly or personally. Dung makes mountain out of a molehill. There must be a cartoon in that!
Richard Drake
Richard,
Admitting you are wrong on something factual is not the same thing as admitting that your approach might be wrong.