[NOTE: I've always believed that people who taunt others while hiding behind fake names aren't really contributing anything except their own bile and hatred. The two people that came to mind when I read this article were Dr. Joshua Halpern of Howard University aka "Eli Rabett" and Miriam O'Brien aka Sou Bundanga/Hotwhopper. These people are supposed to be professionals, yet they position themselves as childish cowards, spewing invective from the safety of anonymity while taunting people who have the integrity and courage to put their real names to their words. The best way to combat people like this is to call them out by their name every time they practice their dark art. To that end, and not just for these two losers, I'm stepping up moderation on WUWT. If you want to rant/spew from the comfort of anonymity, find someplace else to do it, because quite frankly I'm in a position in my life where I don't have the time to deal with this sort of juvenile crap. Be on your best behavior, otherwise its the bit bucket for you. Moderators, take note.. - Anthony]I occasionally comment at WUWT but I do it anonymously. I also do it using a real name. Many have tried but none have succeeded in identifying who I am behind this mask of anonymity.
Curiously, of the first twenty or so commenters, there was barely one with a full name so congratulations must go to Dyrewolf, njsnowfan, PiperPaul, Klem and Gekko for failing the irony test so quickly. Indeed, Anthony (Willard Anthony Watts for long) fails to see the irony in this too. And he certainly fails to see anything beyond the end of his nose.
Now, I don't know if Anthony read the full article but I doubt it. The abstract and the press release that Anthony links to do not mention climate commenters but Anthony decides to do so. And when you look at the tetrad of "narcissism, Machievellianism, psychopathy and sadistic personality" that the authors of the paper were looking for, you can't help but wonder what kind of mirror the commenters, and perhaps the contributors, to WUWT look in each morning.
But then again, when I have commented what I consider to be a fair comment at Willard's site, I get accused of being a troll. So I have just examined myself. Narcissism? Not when you look like me - consider Lieutenant Columbo as a sartorial role model. Machievellianism? If Anthony knows what it means then I don't think he could apply it to me. Psychopathy? Doubt it. Not in my profession. Sadistic? Really, I wouldn't have lasted more than 25 years in my profession with a sadistic or psychopathic tendency. So I don't think I am a troll.
Nor do I think this research was really about the run of the mill commenters, the ones who think they have a valid point (even when they are mistaken). No, this article was more likely about the vicious, nasty sort of internet habitué. I think we can name some, even through the smoke screen they put up. In the end, the word troll is over used. Most now take it to mean someone who dares to contradict the party line on the site where the comment is made.
Now here's a musical interlude: