Richard Drake, you said:

"But the broader point is about developing a culture at Bishop Hill that gives the maximum chance of alliances being formed to roll back existing climate policies (or resist proposed ones) that make no sense and damage the poor."

That may be your aim, but I'm not sure if that's a significant purpose or realistic expectation of a blog like this one. If it becomes prominent enough to have an influence on political processes, such influence is more likely to be achieved by weight of numbers focussing the attention of government MPs, causing them to think: "Well it's clear very many intelligent people are concerned about our climate change policies, maybe they have a point." The small elite and well-connected group that you seem to be proposing can easily be ignored imho. There are already very credible individuals and groups who have tried to influence climate policy and to date have failed. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, it is all too easy to fool oneself.

If I may be so bold Richard, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I picture you as a rather old-fashioned "Land of Hope and Glory" sort of Englishman, who in former times would have been a strong supporter of antidisestablishmentarianism, for example. Your frequent references to "the City" and mentions of your associations with famous people such as Tim Berners-Lee seem to indicate a certain "social standing". That is all well and good, and of course much of what the British Empire did and stood for was laudable, but a London gentlemen's club approach to achieving political change is not necessarily the way to go in this day and age.

Chris, I'm a firm disestablishmentarian. My friend in the City who hosted the meeting with Steve McIntyre has since given up his big job to devote himself to the poorest in Africa. The contact with Tim Berners-Lee came initially from a local Labour activist who was organising an event at the House of Commons and wanted to commemorate UK IT pioneers in 1997. He hadn't heard of Tim so invited me onto the the board of that operation! But that did mean that I knew Tim to show him the wiki idea in 1999, which was fun. I could go on. People get such things very wrong, even if someone uses a real name. That's why, as Richard Betts has just said, it can help to meet the people you are talking to online.

As to the efficacy of a much higher quality discussion on Bishop Hill, I think it could change the world. That's all.

Because essentially, when he's now referred to as art-lover Joey Barton, or Nietzsche-quoting Joey Barton, or social-media philosopher Joey Barton, there's a sense that he's a) putting it on, b) taking the piss or c) getting a bit above himself. Which is really just another way of saying the bourgeoisie isn't quite sure what to do if someone working class goes to an art gallery.

Richard Drake: What do you see this site as? A science site? A policy site? A social commentary site? Those are just labels I came up, give your own.

Are you putting, ever so subtly, and maybe without fully realising it, entry qualifications via your model? Entry qualifications that in fact do not serve your purpose?

Richard Betts: I have to agree with Richard D. about group think is also present on this site.

I have noticed that when some commenters "cross the line" with you many come to your aid. It was like when I visited my Clerk of Works Dad as a kid, and the Irish Navvies would tell off anyone for swearing in front of the lad. In Liverpool if you visited a house you would be given the front parlour and the best china, which was only reserved for the Priest/Vicar, the Doctor, or the dead.

Rather than getting a rough ride, I think you are given more respect than is required for the balance of the blog. The hecklers are shouted down. And heckling has always been a valid expression of free speech.

You are a not guest any more and seem to be handle the "rough and tumble" well.This is not some nice cosy University afternoon tea discussion, or a some intra-academic mailing list.

Ignoring the intellectual content of the posts and comments, Have you learnt something? Leant something about the social elements, the grass-roots political elements?

And if you have, has that changed the way you approach discussions with your peers?

Jiminy:

Are you putting, ever so subtly, and maybe without fully realising it, entry qualifications via your model?

No.

What do you see this site as? A science site? A policy site? A social commentary site? Those are just labels I came up, give your own.

It's totally Andrew Montford's call. But I did offer some opinions on the history twelve days ago in responding to a pseudonymous poster 'bill'. Everything that follows was written on 3rd April.

------

bill:

I know this blog is about climate stuff, so we are all getting rightly indignant about this particular wasting of money, but at the same time lets be aware of the bigger picture. This feckless nonsense is replicated across all government departments. Thats why widows are squeezed for tax money until their mites squeak. Inessential, arguably vote-catching expenditure is government speciality, which is why Gov spending is running at £750 bn a year as against £400 bn a year 10 years ago of which Osborn has to borrow £250bn, despite the widow-shafting. Cuts? What cuts? Yes some token ones to scare you or annoy you - your neighbours job, the local library - but no real desire to bring the madhouse money munching machine under control. Climate profligacy is just one of innumerable examples

Cited in total because it's that important. Here are a few points back. Climate wasn't the original theme of the Bishop Hill blog, which was our host's brand of libertarian thinking. My own view is that Andrew's move into climate through his reading of Steve McIntyre and reinterpretation of the hockey stick story was inspired - because climate profligacy is going to shine the spotlight on the whole of government profligacy, as you've just done so ably. A lot of dominoes could fall when this one does. That's why I've taken the time myself. And you don't have to be a doctrinaire libertarian, as Thomas Sowell calls it, to suspect that the £750bn is far too much. In fact you only have to care about the widow and her mite, in this week in which we remember those momentous moments in the temple in Jerusalem as the hypocrisy of the power brokers and opinion shapers of that day was exposed and the humble poor lifted up.

Revolution - the real kind. Very well said sir.

Shub, thanks for that. Generally I consider Brin and his colleagues a force for good. Android and the V8 JavaScript virtual machine that is part of Chrome are major contributions to the open source world to my mind that are putting Google's money where its mouth is. But Google+ follows Facebook in asking you and me to use our 'common name. I suspect you are less likely to comply :)

A closer parallel for what I'm mooting here is Amazon in its review and other discussion sections, where some contributors have a "Real Name" badge next to their chosen moniker. Who has taken part in Amazon discussion more than me - or just read more than me? How do they think this enobling - a rather effete enobling as far as I can see - has changed user contribution and quality? Certainly on the last thread I contributed to, the review section for Donna Laframboise's Deliquent Teenager, there was this chap calling himself David Holland before me, without such a badge. But something told me he was the real deal so I mentioned what he'd written in my own screed. Our world is that small :)

The other thing I wanted to add today is this about the concepts of deep troll and reverse sockpuppet: both these entities pretend to be on your side while seeking to discredit and/or discourage it. That's the common element. A deep troll takes longer to develop - the term deriving in my mind from a secret agent operating in deep cover. And that's probably enough on two pathogens of the pseudoni for now.

@Richard B: thanks. My mum would certainly get the china out for you, but I suspect you are just as happy with a chipped "I (heart) NY" mug.

So I believe Bishop Hill does has some effect based on its slightly direct and "rowdy" nature. In part due to pseudonyms. I do personally cringe when people attack Richard and Tasmin. Not because of "unwarranted respect arising from their employers", but because they are not defensive or aggressive.

So Richard D. has a valid point because a large part of the my cringing is because they are real people acting cordially.

@Richard D:

Took my son to football on Sunday. The 9-10 year old's where trading player cards. And it struck me that is really what this is about.

Is Richard B. worth a Douglas Keenan and a David Holland combined?
Is a Tasmin worth a Hilary, and a Rhoda?
Is a Richard D. worth a Shub and a Mac?
Is a Barry worth more than Hengist, a BBD and a Scots Renewables?

The blog is a climate personality trading card game. The current state of the market is what it is. It has evolved. My card has some value, but not much. However, put 10 of "people like me" and we are worth combined maybe one of the higher value cards.

I think you would struggle to create a set of rules to create the resulting market value of certain cards that you would be happy with. The market will follow its own path and values will settle as time progresses. Any rule changes will be very difficult to predict.

BH is a pretty good market at the moment.

Jiminy, it helps that your posts are typically great to read, even where I don't understand enough to know that I agree :) But talking of the football I'm going to QPR V Spurs on Saturday - as a lifelong Spurs fan and as a guest of a fanatical QPR one. Have a look at the respective situations of the two clubs and give me odds of the two of us still being friends at the end of the afternoon. And we know each others' real names. It doesn't solve everything :)

I still have concerns about using my real name.
We have seen what a few animal rights extremists can do in the UK, bomb, grave yard stunts, intimidation, in the name of saving animals..
what might a saving the planet type extremist do.. especially as they see political will to tackle climate change fading away.

they will seek people to blame (econmics reallly) but they will not look in the mirror, and they find scapegoats..

ie:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/march/eco-terrorist_032012

@Richard, I have a "won" a few arguments by the tactic of "informed" distraction then "doin' a runner for the exit before payin' the bill". Plausibility and fast legs can be a great assistance. Hopefully not in this case.

As an Englishman who lived in Scotland, I have been in many a pub full of Scots cheering on the English. I find that as long as you give as good as you get and do not take offence, then post match beers are friendly. Strangely though I would never walk into a "Celtic" pub when with my Rangers or Hearts supporting friends.

Again, trying to make it relevant, people either "see" you as a personality, or they make judgements and see you as they want to see you. You cannot control that, with a name or not. As a foreigner living in a sometimes nationalist country, I am always conscious of that.

I am trying to get tickets for Wembley, going with my boss. Luckily we are both Reds so no chance of employment issues :)

To add my Euro's worth - I use pseud here because in the real world I work for a company that finances a lot of green projects. My opinions on the 'big green lie' would likely conflict somewhat with our 'CSR' policy and indeed the business model. Given the run-ins I've had on the nonsense that I can influence, it makes me quite wary of being surrounded by 'believers'. They just dont want to discuss it!

The HSI has been leant out quite a few times to good reactions though I'm pleased to say. Though one colleague said 'yeah, but that's just one side of the story'

Back on topic, there is only one person with my name in the country i live in, so it would be easy to track me as a dissident employee of 'big green'. As a consequence, if I were required to use my real name then I simply just wouldn't post here.

Rumplestiltskin aka FarleyR

Did Richard Drake vanish then?

May 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM | TheBigYinJames

I don't think Richard has "vanished" ... he's never struck me as the type of person who would leave and never say g'bye ;-)

But I do seem to recall seeing him pop in briefly about a week ago (perhaps in one of the threads in which Heartland's billboard débacle was being discussed?); at that time he had indicated that he was quite busy and would not likely have time to blog/comment for the rest of this month ... or something along those lines.

This is amusing to a fault. Richard Drake accusing shub of misrepresentation! Correctly! But not a peep in days of yore when he did it to me daily, eh, Richard?

There's a lot more in-fighting than there used to be. Interesting.

Interesting but inevitable I feel. As they change, we change. Eyes are upon us now, we can't be so cantankerous any more.

Did Richard Drake vanish then?

Apparently. He only read the question 16 days later, truth be known. Hilary's right that he's been busy with other things and once or twice has sought to indicate that. My thoughts have always been with this thread - but not my attention. Expect something more at some point. That's how I find I treat Discussion threads in which I feel I have a stake. But note before I go what that implies: I've never before felt a stake in a Bishop Hill discussion thread and I see them as completely different animals from anything else I've come across on the Internet. (I realise I'm a pedant in saying this - but better an honest pedant than someone who doesn't reflect on his own opinions. That's part of what gives me the potential to be a great systems thinker, something which is relevant to this thread.)

With limited time I've been much more exercised since 4th May by the derision expressed by the Heartland Unabomber ad. Peter Whale gave me the term derision and it's kicked off a lot of thoughts not yet expressed on any blog. I may put something up on my personal blog on that - on the place of derision - before returning here. The Yamal stuff looks amazing and I've been impressed by parts of Myles Allen. But that's about it. Watch this and a variety of other spaces.

Hi Richard, I saw you had posted, so I came back to this old thread. There's been lots of interesting debate here - somewhat inconclusive but often thought-provoking. Also, since it started, BH has been graced by the arrival of the anonymous 'chris' and of Myles Allen (who I sense may have gone now). Two interesting cases in blog conversation. Both show a very common feature of consensus-followers: an assumption of greater legitimacy than their opponents, a feeling that they are allowed to control the debate and set its terms. Who owns the conversation at a blog? That's another thing we could have a Discussion thread about, one day.

Thanks Jeremy. What you say is even truer for me looking at the arrival of Tim Worstall this weekend (no doubt partly because that had something like my full attention). Not that Tim demanded that he control and frame the debate but that others to my mind went out of their way for him not to be able to do so. There is something uncannily similar between the known "anointed ones" who sometimes deign to come onto a blog like this, using their real names, and certain pseudonymous characters, even those who portray themselves as the antithesis of Allen. The mysteries deepen. I'll say something more about uncertainty - on blogs and their outcomes, I mean - in due course. That's why this Discussion has to be open-ended.

For you Richard... it made me smile...

Thank You Hater! - by Clever Pie and Isabel Fay

I'm actually very grateful you pointed me to that, Jiminy. I thought I might cringe to death near the beginning but by the end - especially after the section interpersing various (minor) celebs saying thank you to their personal trolls - I thought it had made the point very well.

Troll over there - on YouTube itself, for example - means something totally extreme by climate blog standards of course. But the wider cultural battle for some human decency in internet interactions is very relevant to our concerns here. Thanks again.

After a gap of three months I though I'd make a note of some further thoughts I'd had on this matter. Perhaps the most important thing I've articulated was in the last week: that interaction on blogs like this is both highly personal and highly public and that it is easy to neglect the latter because of the former.

That I think is the right foundation for further discussion of pseudonymity and how it's treated by blog hosts and moderators. Choice and use of a name for oneself (apart from the pathological cases where it's a cynical choice without real meaning) is a very personal matter and that I think is why any questioning of the status quo provokes really quite emotional reactions. My concerns have largely been about the public impact of the cumulative effect of large-scale use of pseudonyms, including the most pathological cases. That is I think why there's been some talking past each other so far here.

I'd also like to record my gratitude to Paul Matthews and Hilary Ostrov, who have both prompted new thoughts about the personal/public aspects and shown some kind of faith in my own ability to contribute meaningfully, even after venturing into somewhat taboo areas on this thread. Hopefully some of my recent contributions have shown once again that I regard it as a priviledge to interact with a great number of contributors here, many of whom use pseudonyms but do so in an exemplary way.

Hilary was right that I would probably return to Bishop Hill in due course. It's likely that other work will now make those contributions less frequent. Best wishes to those who labour here (and it is real if unpaid work, in so many instances) and to the host, whose decisive editing of threads recently has for me been a major contributing factor in the vibrancy of the whole.