To pseudonym or not to pseudonym?

Crikey readers have their say on the Grog's Gamut debacle.

Grog’s Gamut:

Matthew Lee writes: Re. “Simons: it wasn’t unethical to name Grog’s Gamut” (yesterday, item 3). Margaret Simons, in what is a pretty reasonable piece, gives a pretty standard run down of journalistic practice when it comes to anonymous sources i.e:

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

16 comments

Leave a comment

16 thoughts on “To pseudonym or not to pseudonym?

  1. sickofitall

    So, Guy Rundle is a dangerous commie spreading lies in the best rundown of the Venezualan situation in English….

    Now we know.

  2. Harvey Tarvydas

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Climate change and a carbon price:
    Dick Kleeman writes: Re. “Climate committee is better without the Coalition” (yesterday, item 1).

    Dick needs to discover what is really meant by the ‘climate change’ boogie. As a scientist I suggested years ago ‘climate change’ as a heading for this ‘the subject’ was lousy and it should be titled ‘climate corruption’ – (human corruption of natural climate change).
    What this means is that scientists agree that there seems to be real evidence that the planet (Earth that is if you live here) seems to be warming and it seems that it may be serious enough to be dangerous for survival of much on the planet including us and that it seems it may be catastrophic sooner than most ever imagined and that we the human race may be to blame for much of that one way or another so therefore it seems reasonable that we can (and should) do enough quickly to change the danger. We could wait for someone to do a CBA before we bother but then a lot of people don’t believe the science so why would they believe a CBA.

    For those that want to redefine ‘rational and intelligent let me say this to Tamas …..

    Tamas Calderwood writes: Bernard Keane equates “people who believe in man-made climate change and support a carbon price” with being “rational and economically-literate”, implying sceptics are irrational and economic dunces.

    If in the hotel or shopping centre you are occupying at the time some prick yells out ‘there is a massive bomb about to detonate and take us all to heaven” would you join those who run out ASAP or would you say “I don’t know that that is the case, we’ve only got his statement and its not signed and in writing” or would you listen to the ‘septic’ who announces ‘I am a mind reader and I can tell you 100% that that prick is fooling about the bomb”.

    Nobody guarantees they know either way about all the ins and outs of the ‘climate change’ threat, it’s probability theory (do you understand that), be smart, make your great grandchildren safe.

  3. John Bennetts

    So Tamas Calderwood is back. Did he bring fellow loony Dick Kleeman with him or meet him here?

    Dick, if you do not know the difference between climate and weather, then Crikey is not the place to do so. The Australian Weather Bureau has an excellent article on this subject linked from its home page.

    Tamas, as usual, I love your maths lessons, but why do you so object to Australians doing their bit? Did you come last in school all the time and are you still trying to convince yourself that this is the way it should be?

  4. Guy Rundle

    Luke

    Your criticism of my article would be more effective if you’d actually rebutted some of my points. You didn’t. The Venezuelen economy is strong, reinvestment of oil profits has been substantial, and large amounts of it also used to imrpove the lives of the poor. It’s that latter process that you call ‘squandering’. Which simply proves my point – that people who criticise Chavez in this way simply dont give a dman whether the poor live or die.
    As to corruption (which I noted), yeah that’s terrible. Imagine how screwed up we’d be if say Wall Street and the London City lost hundreds of billions, were bailed out and then took huge bonuses anyway.

  5. pedro

    No JB, Tamas isn’t back. In fact if I stick my head out the window I can still see him standing on the Science isn’t Settled platform, holding his net book and yelling “You are ALL wrong”, while frantically waving some printouts from a peer-reviewed skeptic website at the world as it chugs off into the future.

    Don’t feed the troll, people. TC is old school and for best punishment, totally ignored, even if Crikey is so biased that like the MS media, it gives disproportionate representation to one or two opinionated fools whose only qualification is an internet connection.

  6. Tamas Calderwood

    Gentlemen – nice to hear from you.

    Doc Harv: I don’t buy your argument. There’s no evidence for this apocalyptic warming that we’re told to spend trillions on. No thanks. It’s not an emergency so let’s not panic.

    John: If there were actually a problem, of course Australians should pull their weight. But the problem is not supported by evidence and the cost of the proposed solutions is absurd.

    Pedro: You do see the irony in blogging on this site about me while telling people to ignore me, don’t you?

  7. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    I love the way Dick Kleeman states, without reference to any source whatsoever: “The earth is not warming due to anything to do with man”. Thanks Dick. All that time spent in the air has given him a kind of overview, a Christ-like knowingness, as if……
    Dick, is atmospheric CO2 rising? Is the earth warming or are man’s thermometers gone SNAFU? Oh right. The earth is probably warming but it’s just natural and nothing to do with the billions of tonnes of burnt coal or the 20 million+ new cars on the road every year. 20+ million cars per year. So, you’re not with Tamas, you’re in another starship on another trajectory. How exciting. For all of us

  8. Tamas Calderwood

    Hugh – how much warming has there been since 1998?

  9. John Bennetts

    @ Tamas:

    Warming is indeed happening and 1998 has been knocked off its perch as the warmest year. For the year to date, January to August 2010:

    “Land and Ocean +0.67°C (+1.21°F) 1st warmest . 2002 (+0.62°C/1.12°F).”

    I cut this from a table published by NOAA this month analysing world average temperatures for the year to date. 1988 doesn’t even come second. You must be working from data at least 8 years old.

    Reference: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global.

  10. John Bennetts

    Additional: When following the above link to NOAA, select the August 2010 report. It’s a good read.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...