Bishop Hill JeanS on anonymity
Mar 4, 2010 Blogs Climate: other JeanS is well known to followers of climate blogs, being a regular commenter and occasional author at Climate Audit. After Leo Hickman's piece the other day criticising anonymous posters, I asked Jean (not his real name), who is a professional statistician, whether he'd like to say something about his desire as a practising scientist to remain anonymous when contributing to blogs. The following has been lightly edited for language.
...being anonymous is deliberate decision I made after long consideration when I started actively commenting on climate-related blogs. The main reason is that I want to keep my real career out of this. I'm in the academic world, and unlike the US, we do not have a tenure system. People are only human, and anything, even a small thing, that can be used against you might be used, even if it does not have anything to do with the actual topic. That is, I see that using my real name would present some risks to my academic career but I can hardly imagine any situation where it might be helpful.
Also, whatever I've been doing, it's been merely a "hobby" for me. I have not really planned to publish anything on topic. I've been contacted by a few people proposing some work related to climate research but I've declined. Simply by doing that, it would then be more than a "hobby". Also for this reason I have, for instance, explicitly said a couple of times to Steve that, whatever I "publish" on CA, he can use in a publication etc. as if it were his own discovery. The way I see it is that the work done by "anonymous people" over at CA is community work done on Steve's premises, and if someone needs to be credited for it, it is Steve. In my opinion, if a person wants to have "proper" credit, she/he should use the real name when commenting/posting.
Being anonymous also gives me something I won't have once I start using my real name: freedom to stop commenting whenever I wish, if I, e.g., get bored/too busy with real life etc. Once your name is out, it is like a stain, in good and bad, that follows you rest of your life.
Also, related to Hickman's piece, I do not understand his search for "motives and vested interest" related to anonymity. What would he gain knowing my name? Nothing. The only insight into "my motives" is to read what I've been writing under the name "Jean S". This is the same for Hickman himself: the only thing I can figure out about him is to read what he's been writing. It would not make any difference if all of his articles had been posted under a pseudonym - they might be, how would I know? It is all about the credibility, or lack of it, you build by your own writings, nothing else. It should be enough for Hickman, for instance in my case, to know that e.g. Steve, Judith Curry, Eduardo Zorita, and Roman Mureika do know my true identity, and they still communicate with me. Actually, in my opinion, when having more scientificly oriented discussions like those once in a while at CA, it is better that people are commenting under pseudonyms. This way the emphasis goes onto what has been said, not onto who is saying it. This is exactly the same reason why the peer review process ideally is anonymous.
Reader Comments (39)
It is not only scientists many councils, authorities, unions, businesses have strong climate change statements, goals and business models which depend on the climate change monies that flow from government. To doubt the validity of these could be career threatening.
And for myself I share the same name as a climate scientist at UEA which would mean its use would be embarrassing all round
I have no professional scientific identity to protect. But I have been on the wrong end of some vicious personal misrepresentations that left me ill for several years, and highly nervous of using my birth name in public. I chose Lucy Skywalker before I knew there was a problem in Climate Science. When I found out, I felt I could perhaps help. My illness gave me time to study the science and the story, and with a pseudonym, I felt protected enough to fight to reclaim the true science with the online sceptics' community.
"Also, related to Hickman's piece, I do not understand his search for "motives and vested interest" related to anonymity. What would he gain knowing my name?"
He might be able to determine whether you are a real statistician or BSing.
JeanS:
Nicely stated. No surprises. I am now retired - but my name is still associated with a business. I owe it to my former partners not to provoke current or potential clients. I have been in many business situations where clients have said some outlandish things about AGW - I avoid saying anything at that moment, for which my more conventional colleagues are very grateful. It is a bit like religion and politics.
At the same time I do admire those contrarians on any topic who use their own names when making comments.
@ bigcitylib. Res ipsa loquitor. Jean S' claims stand or fall on their merits. Therefore, whether he is supported by BP, Shell, the Emirate of Oman, as Hadley/CRU is or GreenPeace the WWF, both of which also support Hadley/CRU is irrelevant. Does he post his data, code, methods, etc. so that others can assess his claims or does he live in a world where the sharing of data is not "standard practice?"
He might be able to determine whether you are a real statistician or BSing
...which might be equally well determined by reading what he (or she) writes and ascertaining whether it is true, no? If this investigation is beyond Hickman's skill (it would be for me, if the statistics got very deep), then he will have to rely on someone else's word in any event.
There is nothing to prevent Jean S from posting under the name of the best statistician in the world (whoever that might be), or claiming to be the chairman of the statistics department at a leading university; there is no way to verify identity on blogs, so again Hickman has to rely on someone else whom he trusts to evaluate Jean S' claims. The practice of anonymity actually assists Hickman, in that he is not led to rely on a fraudulent claim to authority.
Finally, someone who posts as "bigcitylib" criticising anonymity is a little rich, don't you think?
bigcitylib
As any mathematician will tell you, Mr Hickman could only ever hope to determine the probabilities that JeanS is a) real, b) a statistician or c) a real statistician.
As to how meaningfully he could determine those probabilities, it would depend on whether he had any mathematical competence or not.
I agree with all Jean S' points and, as with so much of the other talented and informed input available in blogland, I've enjoyed and valued his contributions. Like Lucy I've suffered some pretty grim character assasination in another area and I do not want to use my name in public. The level of acrimony and ad hom I was witnessing is one of the reasons I started trying to get to the bottom of the climate debate first hand to see if these "awful" sceptics deserved the treatment they were getting in the mainstream. Another reason is the blatant disreard of FOI, avoidance of scrutiny and all the weasel words used by unaccountable people hiding behind their professional status. As far as bigcitylib is concerned I can only conclude he has never had to put the supposed checks and balances of self regulating, so called, "real experts" to the test.
I agree with all of it. Let the message (content) stand on it's own and not be unduly influenced (good or bad) by the messenger.
People are only human, and anything, even a small thing, that can be used against you might be used, even if it does not have anything to do with the actual topic. That is, I see that using my real name would present some risks to my academic career but I can hardly imagine any situation where it might be helpful.
Damn! This sounds like the same kind of consequences when talking to law enforcement. Anything you say can never help you. It can only hurt you. In court in the US, anything you say to law enforcement can be turned against you. Anything in your defense in considered to be hearsay and can't help you.
Better to remain anonymous and never talk to police (lol) for you own benefit.
Here is bigcitylib with others (Connolley & David Adam of the Guardian) frantically trying to uncover the septics [sic] who may have been behind the IOP statement:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/the_iop_fiasco.php
see comments
I use my real name but I'm a newspaper reporter and my name is on everything anyway, so I'm used to the kooks.
I think it's better for people to use their names, but it's a free Internet. If Jean S doesn't want to use his/her name for his/her personal statements, it's his/her choice.
However, people reporting what other people are saying/doing need to think twice about pen names. It's important that readers know the origin of reports.
Harry - please remember, up until the end of last year, to many people the IPCC would have been seen as a reliable source. It is only by open scrutiny of evidence that truth will out. Simply quoting "so and so" said it guarantees nothing.
Anonymous reviewing is completely standard in science (but perhaps not climatology). As said here, it places the emphasis on the information and not the name. Hence I cannot see why anyone could object to anonymity in commenting on science. Unless of course, they are used to operating in a field where issues other than facts reign supreme.
I fully understand the need for anonymity for expert commentators, although it would be nice. to know their particular area of expertise. So many very clever people involved makes me feel inadequate (truly).
I use my own name because I want to stand up and be counted; able to tell my several children that 'I was there'.
Also, retired and rich! (relatively).
My kids are up up and away. I have my pension and live modestly and frugally, so I don't care what anyone says, not that they care anyway. But I have to tell you that having seen the personal attacks made on anyone who goes against the flow is the stuff that makes me cringe. Truth to power is one thing, but anyone with a family and career has to consider that this is like criticizing the Czar or Joe if you want. JeanS you don't ask for power or profit, you give away your ideas...good for you! Keep it up.
"I think until those that frequent these sites come out from behind the cloak of anonymity,,, very few people, particularly climate scientists, will be willing to trust the motives of this army of DIY auditors."
What kind of science do these climate scientists practice? Only "good" people do "good" science. It just gets increasingly bizzare.
BTW I'm no scientist nor expert just venting. and my mamma didn't name me kdk and my last name ain't 33.
I started using my real name in the early '80s on BBSs. I have kept on with it but readily appreciate why the still-employed or sensitively occupied cannot.
I felt constrained from making some observations on a few professional situations in the past that seemed pertinent to the discussion then under discussion out of sympathy for the feelings of other participants still living who might be able to recognize the situation described through my name.
So everything else being equal, I'm not sure I wouldn't also go anonymous were I to start over.
Tilting at windmills:
Our energy policy is being driven by EU diktat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ENhGRJ028
Sorry folks that I couldn't even read to the bottom of the comments. Tomorrow I will.
Andrew: this was a brilliant idea.
JeanS: very helpful and honest, as one would expect from everything you've written in that name.
Lucy and not banned yet: awesome, moving and insightful. Thank you most of all.
I agree with bigcitylib. He should publish under his own name, we would then know if he is funded by the Chinese or Russian Intelligence Services, or both. And Tamino should publish under his own name too, why not, then we'd know if he really is a mathematician. Oh, and so should Steve McIntyre publish under his own name, and that denialist who calls himself McKittrick.
What an odd name it is to choose for an alias.
In fact, now I think about it, maybe BCL does publish under his own name. Going through life with a name like that would explain a lot....
Quite a few public sector carers come with a ban on commenting in public on controversial matters, and I'm in one such job. I am quite certain though that if I contributed to blogs backing AGW that wouldn't be a problem as that wouldn't be regarded as controversial. But coming out on the other side would be seen as controversial and a disciplinary matter.
martyn said yesterday:
It looks like the UEA have added a supplementary memorandum dated March
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo
but the link isn't working. would like to see it.
btw the hearing was on no TV news anywhere that i know of. maybe domestic tv in UK...i wouldn't know.
what stood out for me from reading the transcript was:
Professor Jones: We were not excluding anybody. We were making the derived product available and the series, so those data were available on our website. What was not there was the raw station data.
Q210 Graham Stringer: You do not always get it right though, do you?
Professor Slingo: No, but that is not an error in the code; that is to do with the nature of the chaotic system that we are trying to forecast.
Prof Watson: ....We need to find an answer to whether or not NASA and NOAA have actually released all the individual data.
Is anything George Orwell wrote less valid because he never published using his real name?
I am anonymous for much the same reason. Many of my cow-orkers and immediate management are raving "progressives" and if I were to post under my real name, I don't beleive they would hesitate to sack me simply for those views. I really mean that.
Maybe such a thing could be fought, but who wants to stay where they aren't wanted? It isn't worth the drama. I would rather stay anonymous.
not banned, I am distinguishing between commentary/document analysis and reporting.
The documents speak for themselves (with a bit of prodding) and opinions are opinions. But if somebody says he went to Yamal and brought back a core, or that he is retelling the experiences of somebody who allegedly did so, I want to know who this guy is, whether he could have been where he said he was or interviewed who he said he interviewed.
Perhaps you could frame it as the difference between internal and external reporting.
Pat, Newsnight on BBC2 did a very short piece that night. Starting c18:45 in ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r9xx2/Newsnight_01_03_2010/
I once accidentally offended some users of a particular computer program online.
A group of them were so offended that decided to investigate me discussing it at length of their message boards (which they didn't realise I was reading), spinning elaborate speculative (but entirely errorneous) theories linking me to their perceived enemies. A couple even decided to even stake out my house (I don't know what they expected to find), and sat for hours in a car outside my home.
As a result, I prefer to remain anonymous, especially when discussing controversial matters.
"bigcitylib. Res ipsa loquitor. Jean S' claims stand or fall on their merits."
JeanS: I iz a statistishun.
RayG: I can tell by your merits, for I iz 1 2!
Copner, Seems like you experienced something like a Chinese Cyberposse.
Were you screwing with anonymous?
I am anonymous and pseudo-anonymous (depending on where I am commenting) for many reasons:
1) I started commenting online way back before the WWW was even invented, on UseNet. Anyone who thinks blogs are vicious should look back at the UseNet archives. I did use my real name, and then someone started calling my ex-wife (she was the only one in my city with the same surname). Needless to say, this was a Not Very Good Scene. Ever try to explain on-line commenting to someone who had never heard of it (this was the early 90s, before everyone had a computer at home).
2) I post on company time. Not exactly kosher, but my work is incredibly cyclical. I can work 10 or 12 hour days to get a project done, or have no "deliverables" for days. It all balances out. I need the break from poring over 10,000 lines of data, or editing an accounting manual. Trust me. And as I don't smoke or take half-hour coffee breaks, I don't see it as a waste of time. Neither does my boss. She might, however, not appreciate having to explain to her boss that I'm not speaking for her, or the corporation, which (trust me), some will try to use to get back at me because they disagree with me. Pathetic, but true.
3) Big City Lib: I am a statistician. No, I don't care if you believe me. That's my job title and training. Right now, I have to find where someone made a mistake in the Minimum Data Set of the Resident Assessment Instrument. I have several programs running that will help. Soon, one of them will "bing", and I will have my answer. No, it has nothing to do with climate change. Its called "auditing the data". Just like I'm not a health professional, I don't need to be to find their errors. Get it yet?
And I iz 2! We ALL is statistishuns here at BH!
Nope. You're a run of the mill Big City Liberal. And, apparently, a conspiracy nut more akin to a Nirther than anything. Do you put on a Sherlock Holmes hat and pretend to puff a licorice pipe when you're trying to identify people?
Interesting that"BigCityLib" hasn't really answered any of the issues posed, including:
1. If anonymity of contributors is a concern, why do you post under a pseudonym?
2. Some posters prefer anonymity because they feel that the risks of revealing their true identities will put either their professional or private lives at risk. Their stories and concerns in this regard are credible. Perhaps that's why you post as you do?
3. Ultimately, whether someone is a "professional" statistician, with a series of publications to his or her name and membership in an appropriate national or international organization, is irrelevant. Either the statistical analysis and critique is correct, or it is not.
Arguing from authority is one of the problems that bedevils climate science: to put it in context, they've forgotten to check Mann's code & sources, and look instead only at who he is -- accepting the work uncritically because he's an "important" and "well regarded" climate scientist (publicly at least - it's pretty clear from the emails that the CRU team thought his late 1990s - 2003 work was shoddy). Mann has never actually released all of the work that underpins his MBH 98, 99 works - including code, and determination of residuals. I expect that if he had been forced to give it all up, those papers (which have already been effectively challenged) would fall in their entirety. But, given the cabal nature of the climate scientists (in Judith Curry's terms - the "tribalism"), that never happened. Worryingly, during his recent parliamentary presentation, Professor Jones noted that virtually no one has ever asked to see the code or underlying raw data (other, of course, than the "sceptics" with whom he felt he was doing battle) - but, since we know that journal reviewers don't do that work, it's vitally important that the all of the data, code and methods necessary for full replicaton be available. The way that climate "science" is practiced, however, makes replication virtually - in some cases, obviously deliberately - impossible.
You've not actually put forward a case for why contributors to blogs should have to sacrifice their anonymity. Most of your later responses have simply become troll-like and small minded.
Even the comment from the journalist, Harry Eager, fails to address the issues. It's not that an anonymous post is not usable or quotable - although it may mean that he needs to check or confirm the reliability of the claims being made. Indeed, as standard practice, he should be doing that even if the information comes from an "authoritative source".
Oh, and I'm not a statistician, and make no claims in that regard.
@Kevin: I don't really know what you're talking about. It was nothing to do with the Chinese or the other link you gave.
Let's just say that there are certain people who view certain computer programs as underpinning a progressive social movement. Most of them people are decent people, but there is an inner core of loud and fanatical people, who can not believe that anybody who disagrees with them (about anything at all) is anything but evil. There enemies are all allegedly funded by evil corporations, have no sincere beliefs, and need to be investigated so as to reveal their wickedness. The similarities to AGW movement in this regard is eerie.
Very interesting discussion, I was quite amazed that the reasons people might use pseudonyms weren't obvious, and that any "claims to authority" (self-authority) would be connected to having done a scientific study intended to be used as evidence. And, who knows, maybe some who post under pseudonyms refer to their own real names when citing (you know, with the whole yada, peer-reviewed, etc.).
I use my real first name, although there were some Yahoo groups years ago where I used a pseudonym, knowing full well that anyone who wanted actually could have hacked out my real identity. I don't use my last name, it's too long and the whole thing a bit too formal for this American expat (in Switzerland). Of course, my first name is not all that common either.
Just a funny anecdote, that can happen if you stick to the same name/pseudonym everywhere - because of the relative rarity of my name, upon visiting a non-skeptical site (still haven't discovered if it's simply anti-skeptical or positively warmist, haven't seen that much yet). I did make a comment about the attitude I was perceiving and asked if it was usual or specific to that particular post.
Someone went and looked for me in the skeptical sites and came back and quoted excerpts from several of my comments from various sites - there aren't that many, and he missed the best one - and said if I'm "that" Kendra, that would explain a lot!
I answered in a humorous vein (although have rarely seen humor on warmist sites), wow, I've been stalked, how could you have known that while I'm slightly over the hill I'm still drop-dead gorgeous - and then reiterated the original question. It went round and round from there (I did get one supportive comment as well as a welcome from the site owner).
Because I have nothing whatsoever to lose in this, and certainly claim no expertise, I do like using my real name. In some other areas, I might perhaps use a pseudonym, but quite frankly "climate science" and "healthist" junk science take all my time at the moment (common thread: junk science politicized to control through fear-mongering).
I maintain my anonymity for the sake of all who read my words. Were they to become aware of my unique eminence and the awesomeness of my personal reality they would be rendered incapable of independent thought and bow down before me as my family, friends and acquaintances invariably do. My beloved wife is particularly prone - pun intended - to such obeisance, but this is so common an experience for married men everywhere that it's hardly worth mentioning. In short, I prefer the luminosity of my wisdom alone to light humanity's path to ultimate understanding. Knowing privately that I have saved the planet is the only reward I seek.
Because of comments over at Lucia's, I finally looked up "sockpuppet!" It's seen as quite negative, understandably, but made me a feel shaky about having written above:
"And, who knows, maybe some who post under pseudonyms refer to their own real names when citing (you know, with the whole yada, peer-reviewed, etc.)."
I didn't mean that in the sockpuppet sense at all. I'm curious, though, would it always have to be a negative activity?
@bigcitylib, you're successfully missing the point. The fact is that it doesn't matter if JeanS is a "real statistician" or if someone else works for an oil company or is left-handed or whatever other irrelevant circumstance you might pull in. The work stands for itself; properly done, science and mathematics can be evaluated in itself.
Many journals and major conferences, in fact, extend anonymous reviewing to make the authors anonymous to reviewers, so that evaluation of the work won't be influenced by the stature and institutions of the authors.
That's great that we are able to receive the credit loans moreover, this opens up new opportunities.