2012-02-09 00:47:31being "outed"
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I would like to respond to this post

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1261&p=3#73704

which asked whether my identity has been "outed", which puts me in a bit of a quandry. 

As it happens I am not too bothered as my main reason for using a nom de guerre was to avoid my posts as being interpreted as official statements made on behalf of my employer, and also because there are some nutters out there.  "outing" an anonymous posters identity is pretty shabby and more or less a tacit admission that they don't have a substantive counter to your argument.  However there are many who care more than I do about anonymity and it is unfair on them if I actually answer the question myself as it encourages asking for confirmation that those doing the outing were correct.

So I would be very grateful if someone could add a moderator comment to this post explaining why that sort of question is not reall on and we should ust respect the anonymity of any poster that wants it, whether they have been outed or not.

If you agree of course!

2012-02-09 01:06:10
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

I agree and will take care of it.

2012-02-09 01:12:17Posted the following response
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68
Tristan at 22:48 PM on 8 February 2012

Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Interesting!

BTW DM, is your identity 'outed', or was it something you never bothered to hide?

Response:

[DB] As a general note, when an individual uses a "nom de plume" rather than their actual name, that decision is to be respected.  Period.  This is irregardless of whether or not other indiviuals behave less respectfully and then "out" that individual.  I'm sure that you'd agree that sharing of personal, privileged data without the express consent of the source of that information is wrong.

Please treat it no differently than the acquisition of stolen (intellectual) property.

2012-02-09 01:13:08
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Thanks Daniel, much appreciated!

I suspect that it was just fishing for confirmation of the "outing".  I was intending to publish my blog post on the Essenhigh paper as Dikran Marsupial, which would make it fairly obvious who I was, but maybe I should give that some thought...

2012-02-09 03:04:14
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

If you'd like, I can create an alter-ego author identity to use for that purpose.  Then it would be ######### instead of Dikran Marsupial as the author of the blog post.

Let me know if you want that as an option.

2012-02-09 04:25:28
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.121.42

I think it would be a good idea. The idjits will just use the information to create a big commotion about Dikran's post and SkS in general. We all know how propaganda operates, and the deniers are pretty predictable.  

2012-02-09 04:47:43
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Dikran, is that you commenting with 2 different ID's on Open Mind:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/trend-and-uncertainty/#comment-59368

dikranmarsupial

Will, as Tamino correctly suggests the standard statistical approaches to the problem are completely open about the uncertainty (and I suspect the Bayesian credible interval on the regression is pretty much the same as the frequentist one). It seems to me that plotting the credible interval is a good way of communicating the uncertainty to a non-specialist audience who don’t understand statistics, but the confidence interval on the trend is a perfectly adequate indication for those that do.

Tamino is an excellent statistician, who obviously knows time series analysis very well. However, unlike Dr Briggs, he also seems to have a good grasp of the climatology, which means his analyses are useful as they address the important issues, rather than just viewing the observations as a set of numbers.

 

and

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/trend-and-uncertainty/#comment-59371

Dikran Marsupial

I just had a go at incorporating the uncertainty in the response variable using a Bayesian analysis. Even if you accidentally overstate this uncertainty by a factor of two (as I did – mea culpa) it appears to make very little difference to the regression or the credible interval. See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=113&&n=1261#73703

 

Or is James Dey at it again?

2012-02-09 05:15:35
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Hi Daniel, no worries, they are both me, I suspect the second one was posted in a quiet moment while I was supervising a lab class and so retyped my ID.

Thanks for the offer of a different ID for the Essenhigh blog article, however it might be better if I posted it as Dikran Marsupial to encourage people to submit responses to incorrect papers that are used by skeptics.  There are plenty of people here at SkS and elsewhere that could do this, and it would help SkS's aim of having peer reviewed backup and would mean that the real scientists don't have to waste their time debunking papers that nobody in the field will pay any attention to.

2012-02-09 11:11:13Different ID
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

One option is to register a user account Gavin Cawley and guest post under that name. 

Just don't get an echo chamber between Gavin and Dikran.

"Gavin, you're soooo smart"

"why thank you Dikran, you've got great taste".

Although we do frown upon multiple users so could open us up to accusations of hypocrisy. Hmm, kind of painted yourself into a corner here, Gavin :-)

2012-02-09 22:43:42
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.208.125

@John LOL!