Posters who are members of an organisation with a publicly-stated position on the subject in question are in a different category to those who are known to be speaking only for themselves.

On 26 July 2006 John Quiggin published on his website a critique by Dr. Roger Jones of CSIRO, an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, of an op-ed by The Australian’s economics editor Wood. In this piece, Jones was critical of Wood and several other ‘real people’ (including me). Professor Quiggin introduced Roger Jones as ‘a climate scientist who knows what he is talking about on this issue’, and Roger very properly made the following disclaimer at the head of his critique:

‘The views expressed here represent personal opinion based on assessing a wide a range of sources, professional experience in assessing both past and future climate, and do not represent the position of any organization.’

However, on 30 July 2008, the following comment on John Quiggin’s thread ‘Back to the Future’ was made by a ‘Roger Jones’.

‘The science [of climate change] ain’t worth debating. The values at stake are. Let’s try and be honest for a change (oops, disqualifies all denialists).’

If the author of that post was Dr Roger Jones of CSIRO I believe that he acted improperly. He should either have (a) used an alias or (b) stated that the views expressed were his personal opinion and did not represent the position of any organisation. I assume that it is not the position of CSIRO that 'the science' is not worth debating, or that all 'denialists' are dishonest.

Pseudoplumes and Nom de Nims seems to be creating a few issues. Presumably in most instances it is the argument that is of interest - not who is advancing it. Emminent persons have been known to say silly things and espouse silly beliefs - conversely the village idiot has from time to time come up with a penetrating insight that is worth taking seriously.
The very fact that this discussion is raising so much interest suggests that many of us are pursuaded by who is advancing the argument rather than the argument itself.
The starting point for this thread was the so called Windschuttle hoax - the fact that Windschuttle was taken in neither enhances nor diminishes him - when you consider the various hoaxes that have been perpetrated in the past you can say that he is in some very good company.
Since all of the people can be fooled some of the time anyone who believes that they have never been fooled are either totally lacking in life experience or have been completely cut off from the human race.
The quality of the arguments is all that matters and as long as we bear in mind that the quality of our arguments does not improve by increasing the volume or by abusing those people who disagree with us we just might have a chance of learning something.

Graham's right about the Crikey banner, although it does still have that animated exclamation mark before the Crikey. Apologies MaryG.

Keith Windschuttle is a prominent public figure doing influential things in public space and public institutions. Commenters are a mixed bunch. Why should a nobody private citizen making a comment on a discussion forum be held to the same levels of accountability as an influential public figure?

A lone commenter here, pseudonymous or not, does not have anywhere near Windschuttle's capacity to influence policy and its real world consequences.

There are any number of reasons for pseudonyms - problems with employers, following an existing norm, avoiding stereotyping, sock puppetry, cowardice, snobbery. In this forum, Windschuttle could pseudonymously participate in his capacity as a private citizen, which he can't do at Quadrant. Why deny him that opportunity if he was so inclined?

Blair Bartholomew

I see you are not going to respond to my posts. Does that make you a 'clown' or a 'gutless wonder'?

Thinking more about the reasons for people adopting an alias brought some interesting names to mind:

CS Lewis, Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Stephen King among other famous writers all used aliases at various times for various reasons. The jury is still out on William Shakespeare. Does it make the writing better or worse?

Bob Dylan, Elton John, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Costello, John Wayne, Nicolas Cage, Cat Stevens, Maria Callas are pseudonyms or stage names. And you could list scores more. Would you go to a performance by any of these gutless wonders?

George V1 of England, Lenin and Stalin, Mark Twain, George Eliot, Karen Blixen, Brent of Bin Bin, blairbar are all aliases for real people. The company you keep!

Many Australians who enlisted in World War 1 used aliases. One was only outed when he won the VC. Another gutless wonder?

Elizabeth (aka Lizzie, Beth, Betty and Hey You)

Interesting that you mention Quiggin, IanC.

A participant in Weekend at Kev's 2020 spoof of the movie classic, Weekend at Bernie's just ran a thread about "scokpuppets" (which is Quiggin language means anyone who disagrees with him) implying/hoping that it could soon be made illegal.

That got me wondering... I'm wondering if that would also apply to wiki vandals like Quiggin who try too wreck Fred Singer's Wiki site.

Discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&limit=500&action=history

While I don't use an alias in this forum, I have been persuaded in the past that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. Mind you, I think that they are abused by a minority who hide behind them in order to publish hateful and/or defamatory comments about others.

Having said that, I'm wondering if Blair Bartholomew actually has an opinion about the Windschuttle hoax, or indeed Graham Young's article about it?