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.