Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:12 pm Post Subject: Scientific 'fact' subject to Opinion: Weathermen slug it out
In our world, statements made by scientists are often presented as definitive, final and self evident. Anecdotal evidence and the observations of the ordinary lay person are frequently doubted, dismissed, rubbished and ridiculed as unscientific.
Frequently, scientific types on this forum make pronouncements and expect that by virtue of their position, what they say will be acknowledged as self evident and beyond question. Sometimes these statements are plainly ludicrous and at complete odds with real scientific method and genuine open mindedness.
I find it highly interesting that New Zealand's Metservice and NIWA have recently made the news at loggerheads with one another, more specifically NIWA's Jim Salinger, a senior climate scientist, and former Metservice chief meteorologist Dr Augie Auer.
Augie is a well known man made climate change skeptic and many references to his membership of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition can be found on the Internet. What I didn't know was that "NIWA and the MetService have been in mediation since last year due to tensions between the two organisations." ](*,)
Auer says 'comments made by principal Niwa climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger after last week's extreme rain and flooding in Northland were "just plain silly" and reflected the danger of an organisation won over by the global-warming lobby becoming involved in weather forecasting' and that "qualified climate scientists would "cringe" at Dr Salinger's interpretation" - and "Dr Salinger's statement is as unscientific as it is incorrect".
Salinger is often wheeled out to make comments on what's going on with our weather and to try to put it into some sort of context. Auer is calling for NIWA to be disbanded.
Who should we believe? Both men are scientists and both well respected. It is a timely example of the fact that science is still very much influenced by opinion and politics and that there is plenty of room for conjecture. The scientific community, here and around the world, especially in climate and meteorological matters, does not speak with one voice - far from it in fact. As the activities of the IPCC clearly demonstrates.
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
Location: wellington
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:47 pm Post Subject:
Quote:
Auer says 'comments made by principal Niwa climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger after last week's extreme rain and flooding in Northland were "just plain silly" and reflected the danger of an organisation won over by the global-warming lobby becoming involved in weather forecasting' and that "qualified climate scientists would "cringe" at Dr Salinger's interpretation" - and "Dr Salinger's statement is as unscientific as it is incorrect".
So Salinger's 'unscientific' statement was to state that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, to which Auer replied "Dr Salinger's statement is as unscientific as it is incorrect. If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there's no rain over the deserts?".
Which is just an absurd statement. It is actually Auer here saying things that not only a "qualified climate scientist" but a first year physics student would cringe at. The ability of warmer air to hold more moisture is, as Salinger points out, a scientific fact that's been known for over a hundred years. Not a theory, nothing remotely controversial - an actual, measurable FACT. Auer throwing the "why no rain in the Deserts?" statement into the mix is at best just a mischievous wind-up, at worst a sign of how un-scientific Auer's mind has become over the last few years.
Quote:
I find it highly interesting that New Zealand's Metservice and NIWA have recently made the news at loggerheads with one another, more specifically NIWA's Jim Salinger, a senior climate scientist, and former Metservice chief meteorologist Dr Augie Auer.
MetService v. NIWA and NIWA v. Auer are two quite separate issues, the latter is not a 'more specific' subset of what is going on between the SOE and the CRI.
Quote:
The scientific community, here and around the world, especially in climate and meteorological matters, does not speak with one voice - far from it in fact. As the activities of the IPCC clearly demonstrates.
Surely the opposite is true? The overwhelming consensus in climate and meteorological matters is that man-made global climate change is a reality. The activities of the hundreds of scientists that have contributed research to the IPCC has led to one of the most clearly recognised scientific theories in recent times.
Yes, there are dissenters to this theory (as there are to many scientific theories), but, at present, the majority of scientific opinion is behind the IPCC and its views.
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
Location: wellington
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:42 pm Post Subject:
Quote:
What are your credentials?
I have no scientific credentials relevant to the issue at all.
I just follow the news and know a reporter who is currently following the NIWA/MetService story. The issues between NIWA and MetService are to do with (from what I recall) various data-sharing agreements, and the fact that NIWA is moving into the forecasting business, essentially setting itself up as a competitor to MetService in that area, a move that MetService is understandably unhappy about.
I could, of course, be entirely wrong about this, but, either way, it certainly has nothing to do with NIWA and MetService taking different sides on the climate change fence. I don't even know if MetService have a public opinion on that front? I suspect they'd probably side with NIWA, if pushed on the point.
Hence, the whole Auer/NIWA 'debate' is a separate issue, not, as Melody suggested, a subset of the MetService/NIWA arbitration that is going on at present.
And I put the word 'debate' in quotes to reiterate my initial point - that there isn't really a debate here at all. Auer is just flat-out wrong.
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 173
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:06 am Post Subject:
Melody, You do raise a good point - Who are you to believe.
Personally i find a grain of truth on both sides regardless of the science I also find finanical reasons for both sides to embellish. I can also see conspircy and big business sticking there fangs in to save fortunes and create new ones and I can see a bigger picture which is probably that we are stuffing the planet up burning fossil fuels and cutting down forrests etc etc.
If some good changes are made because of some wrong science I dont have a problem with it. I dont think anything good is going to come of any of this but who knows atleast its out there.
A clever friend of mine once said to me Nothing is black or white its all just shades of grey. I also like Arthur C Clarks method of rating stuff out of 1 to 10 instead of giving a diffenative yes/no.
I heard Auer on 1zb (im not a regular listen nor first time caller either) with layton smith and for the little bit that caught he seemed pretty fair mainly sticking to the argument that no one could predick using models, but then again if you pump tonnes of poisons into the atmostsphere it doesn't take a genius to work out that little good will probably come of it.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:55 pm Post Subject:
Jay_gee,
With this statement surely you are quoting Professor Augie Auer out of context:
Quote:
Auer says 'comments made by principal Niwa climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger after last week's extreme rain and flooding in Northland were "just plain silly" and reflected the danger of an organisation won over by the global-warming lobby becoming involved in weather forecasting' and that "qualified climate scientists would "cringe" at Dr Salinger's interpretation" - and "Dr Salinger's statement is as unscientific as it is incorrect".
So Salinger's 'unscientific' statement was to state that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, to which Auer replied "Dr Salinger's statement is as unscientific as it is incorrect. If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there's no rain over the deserts?"
Which is just an absurd statement. It is actually Auer here saying things that not only a "qualified climate scientist" but a first year physics student would cringe at. The ability of warmer air to hold more moisture is, as Salinger points out, a scientific fact that's been known for over a hundred years. Not a theory, nothing remotely controversial - an actual, measurable FACT. Auer throwing the "why no rain in the Deserts?" statement into the mix is at best just a mischievous wind-up, at worst a sign of how un-scientific Auer's mind has become over the last few years.
Here is the part of Professor Auer's statement that you refer to:
Quote:
"As an explanation of the cause and consequences of last week's Northland rains, Dr Salinger's statement above is as unscientific as it is incorrect. If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there's no rain over the deserts? And the mere presence of moisture in the atmosphere will not produce rain unless there is an associated atmospheric and meteorological process, which last week was the great volume of warm saturated tropical air that funnelled down on to New Zealand.
"But it gets worse. Dr Salinger uses the words 'as climate warming occurs', when his own agency's latest seasonal summary statistics for December-February just released show New Zealand at 15.7 degrees C, 0.9 degrees lower than normal. In fact, his agency's own figures show that New Zealand has been cooling since the El Nino of 1998. To put it simply, NIWA is claiming that warming is occurring when its own records show otherwise. Why won’t they admit this?”
Well, that all sounds very reasonable to me. I feel you have perhaps been rather harsh on Prof Auer and I wonder why... You can make people say anything if you selectively quote and remove part of a statement from its context... Does your 'reporter friend' have something against him? Perhaps you would tell us the name of this reporter so that we can read some of his/her work and judge his/her merit for ourselves...
Below is the complete statement from The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition:
Quote:
Call for NIWA to be Disbanded
Media release 31 March 2007
The latest attempt by NIWA to explain away the extreme rain that fell in Northland these past few days provides the strongest argument for the disbanding of NIWA and the return of all weather matters to MetService, according to Professor Augie Auer, a former chief meteorologist and now chairman of the science panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
"So simplistic, it's silly" is how Dr Auer describes the statement by NIWA climate
scientist Dr Jim Salinger that "As climate warming occurs, the atmosphere can hold more moisture and therefore more rain falls and therefore what we have thought of under past climate data as one-in-100 or more reduces."
“While qualified climate scientists will cringe at Jim Salinger’s nonsensical
interpretation, ordinary New Zealanders affected by adverse natural weather events should rise up and demand that administration of all climate matters should return to its traditional home, MetService,” said Dr Auer.
He explained that in 1992 responsibility for all issues relating to climate science, and even data just 48 hours old, were stripped from the then New Zealand Meteorological Service (renamed as MetService) and transferred to the newly created National Institute for Water and the Atmosphere (NIWA).
"As an explanation of the cause and consequences of last week's Northland rains, Dr Salinger's statement above is as unscientific as it is incorrect. If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there's no rain over the deserts? And the mere presence of moisture in the atmosphere will not produce rain unless there is an associated atmospheric and meteorological process, which last week was the great volume of warm saturated tropical air that funnelled down on to New Zealand.
"But it gets worse. Dr Salinger uses the words ‘as climate warming occurs’, when his own agency's latest seasonal summary statistics for December-February just released show New Zealand at 15.7 degrees C, 0.9 degrees lower than normal. In fact, his agency's own figures show that New Zealand has been cooling since the El Nino of 1998. To put it simply, NIWA is claiming that warming is occurring when its own records show otherwise. Why wont they admit this?
"Dr Salinger is part of an agency that supports the hypothesis, promulgated by the government-employees and funding-dependent scientists that work with and for the IPCC, that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have caused global warming when in fact there is no scientific proof that CO2 is the cause of the minimal warming that occurs from time to time in the atmosphere. As a consequence, there is no need for Kyoto, carbon taxes and the other costly red herrings currently being spun in political circles.
"At a time when MetService and NIWA are at such loggerheads that a mediator has had to be appointed, it's time for the Government and the Opposition parties to disband NIWA to stop its nonsense statements and return its functions to the agency where they rightly belong, MetService. At least MetService deals in the real world of observation of actual weather events, and forecasts based on those events, as well as its links with World Meteorological Organisation, as New Zealand’s official representative on that body. This is the real world of weather, as opposed to the computerised ‘statistical models’ on which Dr Salinger says NIWA relies” said Dr Auer.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
Phone (09) 486 3859 - Mobile 0274 836688 - Email - terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz
Contact: Professor Augie Auer, tel 09 480 5300, email: auer@globe.net.nz
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:18 pm Post Subject:
Well Jay_gee,
Nothing further to say? You have been seen lurking on the forums, so you can't say you haven't seen the above post. It wouldn't do for people to think that you're just a 'hit and run artist' would it? Or even worse, a shill for the establishment. :shock: :shock:
Professor Augie Auer seems to have based his comments on sound science. Being independent, he now has the freedom to express opinions that differ from that of the establishment herd, from the so-called consensus. Is that your problem with him? Your comments about him seem based on a wish to sully his name and message, in fact it seems that you have something against him personally. Do you perhaps know the man? Or does your "reporter friend" have something against him?
Beware Jay_gee of getting all your opinions from just the mainstream media. Remember what Mark Twain had to say:
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
I don’t know if Twain had anything equally pithy to say about reporters, but this quote would seem rather pertinent:
“Whenever you find you’re on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.”
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
Location: wellington
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:18 am Post Subject:
John Anderson wrote:
Well Jay_gee,
Nothing further to say? You have been seen lurking on the forums, so you can't say you haven't seen the above post. It wouldn't do for people to think that you're just a 'hit and run artist' would it? Or even worse, a shill for the establishment. :shock: :shock:
Ah yes, the old "you're working for the man" insinuation. A favourite tactic of conspiracy theorists who can't understand why normal, un-biased people would disagree with them.
No, I'm not a 'shill', nor a hit-and-run artist. I just don't check every forum on every irregular visit I make to the site.
John Anderson wrote:
Professor Augie Auer seems to have based his comments on sound science.
No it isn't. Much as you lambast me for 'selective' quoting, much the same could be said about Auer's 'selective' use of science to back up his own opinions. I mean, really, how misleading his this statement, context or not...?
Augie wrote:
"If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there's no rain over the deserts?"
John Anderson wrote:
Being independent, he now has the freedom to express opinions that differ from that of the establishment herd, from the so-called consensus. Is that your problem with him?
No, my problem with him is that his science is flawed, and his climate-change opinions erroneous.
John Anderson wrote:
Your comments about him seem based on a wish to sully his name and message, in fact it seems that you have something against him personally. Do you perhaps know the man? Or does your "reporter friend" have something against him?
I have nothing personal against Auer, and neither, I imagine, does my friend. (Does "reporter friend" really need quotes?) My friend was just doing a story on the NIWA/MetService fracas - nothing to do with Auer at all, hence my knowledge that the issue between the two organisations had nothing to do with any differences in climate-change philosophy (as suggested by Melody).
John Anderson wrote:
Beware Jay_gee of getting all your opinions from just the mainstream media. Remember what Mark Twain had to say:
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
I don’t know if Twain had anything equally pithy to say about reporters, but this quote would seem rather pertinent:
“Whenever you find you’re on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.”
The majority is always wrong? Pithy quote - not quite sure how it'd stack up if put into universal practice.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:23 pm Post Subject:
Hi Jay_gee,
Good of you to drop in. I rather think you were hoping the thread would die out and you wouldn't have to further defend your statements about Professor Augie Auer - but that's just my opinion.
You have made some very absolute, unqualified statements about Professor Auer, among them:
"Auer is just flat out wrong"
"his science is flawed"
"his climate-change opinions erroneous"
Wow, no attempt at qualification, no "I think", or "in my opinion" or "seems" or suchlike.
So, who is this man you attack so vehemently? Here's a biography we found:
Quote:
August (Augie) H. Auer, Jnr.
Mr. Auer has enjoyed a distinguished career in meteorology spanning 47 years which has included nearly all facets of meteorology including analysis and forecasting (corporate and governmental), teaching at the tertiary level, airborne research, weather modification, air pollution, legal and forensic consulting, extended range prediction, and media presentations.
His interests in seasonal / climate forecasting began in the mid 70’s in response to the concerns of agricultural, forestry, and ski industries’ business people worried about the impacts of weather on their planning and operations.
Augie first visited New Zealand living in Wellington during a sabbatical leave from university life in 1984-85 and working with the former New Zealand Meteorological Service.
Before emigrating with his family to New Zealand in 1990, Mr. Auer retired after 22 years of service as a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming , U.S.A. , with tenure both as an educator and research meteorologist. His research topics are published in more than 75 articles in professional meteorological journals.
From 1990 to 1998, Augie served as Chief Meteorologist for the MetService. He was responsible for the improvement and updating of the technical competence of the MetService weather forecasting staff. He often was called upon to serve as liaison between the media and the MetService during major weather events.
He is probably best known from his presence on National Radio commenting on weather events, and most certainly as a former member of the TV3 News team presenting the weather each weekday evening as a part of “3 NATIONAL NEWS”.
He is known for his simplistic, witty and quick thinking manner in which he talks about the atmosphere (or anything else!) around us.
He certainly does not seem to be someone whose views on climate change should be dismissed by you or anyone, in such a manner. In fact, he seems to be just the qualified independent voice we all need to bring some balance to the public debate. So why your opposition? In my opinion, there are a number of possibilities:
1.) You know Professor Auer, have something against him, deeply dislike him and wish to blacken his good name.
2.) You yourself have a deep knowledge of meteorological science, at lest the equal of Professor Auer's. You understand every nuance of the intricacies of the global warming debate and therefore can perceive and express the flaws in Professor Auer's arguments and the veracity of the position of the global warming consensus.
3.) You really know very little about the science and have just a general understanding of meteorology related sciences. However, through your allegiance to the meteorology establishment you are naturally opposed to anyone who opposes the consensus view. To paraphrase the old Arabian proverb; "The enemy of my friend is my enemy."
Well, to make an educated guess, we would first have to understand more about the parties under discussion. We know about Professor Augie Auer from his biography and from our direct experience of his writings and his appearances on TV. That leaves us with the question of 'who are you?'...
Jay_gee is, of course, a persona, a character you created to play a part. Only one of many web characters you have created over the years to represent you on the web (including a second alter-ego on this forum - possibly created to get Google page ranking benefits from the link back to the URL you list against the username). It might be said that you have quite a history of misrepresenting yourself. For example, three years blogging as a "sexy" librarian named Natalie. You were only outed when you won a Netguide Award for best blog. There is even a video on YouTube of an interview with you on the Good Morning show discussing Natalie Biz's blog.
You claim on one blog user profile to be a Tiger, when you were actually born in the year of the Rat - not so sexy. "…you cannot believe what you read on the net" as you have said yourself - No, indeed. There are also many other examples of you misrepresenting yourself on the web. Truth does not seem to be a priority in your life...
At least part of the Natalie Biz persona was true, your trade is, or was, a librarian and you spent the years 1997 - 2006 as Librarian (and “Information Enthusiast”) at the MetService Library. BTW, you are still listed in the National Library's online directory of NZ Libraries as Library Manager at the MetService - get them to change it.
So with respect to hypothesis 1) - you did not answer the question re the knowing Professor Auer, but said you had nothing personally against him. Well you did know him and as librarian probably had quite a bit to do with him. As to whether you have a dislike for him, possibly, maybe some jealousy - we'll never know for sure.
Hypothesis 2) This doesn't seem to fit, although you profess that meteorology (and astronomy) is an interest of yours, there is no evidence that you are qualified in any way. You would of course have picked up quite a general understanding of meteorology due to the nature of your past work and from the individuals that you associated with at the MetService, but you certainly could not mount any credible dialog with Profess Auer as equals. Your opinions and opposition in all probability must have come from others...
So I'm making a guess that hypothesis 3) is pretty close to the mark (we should have run a poll on it). You say that you're not a shill, well, you're not a Tiger either. How about Toady then, does that fit?
The MetService approach mentioned in this media release by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition on 21 December 2006, seems similar to your own wouldn’t you say…
Quote:
MetService critics should stick to science
MetService critics should stick to science instead of toadying to their political masters
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition scientists have come to the defence of their colleague, Professor Augie Auer, former chief meteorologist of MetService, in response to criticisms posted on Scoop by the present management of MetService.
A statement by the coalition says: "It's time the taxpayer-funded officials in the MetService started explaining the science, instead of resorting to generalised assertions they used in their criticism of Professor Auer.
It seems to us, that instead of presenting valid, verifiable scientific facts, they are more anxious to please their political masters, and to preserve their access to overseas gatherings as representatives of the UN World Met Organisation in this part of the world. To this end they have joined those who Mike Hulme, Director of the UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research refers to as 'climate catastrophists'.
Where, for instance, is the sound, verifiable evidence that carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming in New Zealand or the world? Yet this supposition is the whole basis on which the Government justifies its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and its intentions to impose costs on human activities that emit carbon dioxide and methane, while ignoring the fact that we cannot control the hugely greater volume of emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes, wetlands and the oceans that have gone on for millions of years?
"Instead of bagging a distinguished former colleague, MetService chiefs would do better to answer the question being asked just four days before Christmas, by shivering South Islanders and frost-wary Marlborough grape growers: 'where's all this global warming when we need it?'”
Now we don't often partake in dialogues of this nature with our forum members (only once before) and allow our forum members a great deal of latitude here. Forums in general serve the great purpose of affording individuals a place to air their opinions, sometimes to blow off a bit of steam and sometimes to learn something they could not have accessed elsewhere.
But we do take issue, as in your case, when an individual misrepresents themselves and behaves in a manner that we feel threatens the core values of Mysterious New Zealand and may tend to stifle debate. We strongly feel that if someone is participating in our forums and representing organisations such as the MetService then such an allegiance should be out in the open and without misrepresentation.
You have implied that we are conspiracy theorists. We don’t take offence at this, it's just words that, in particular, debunkers use when they have no credible response. In your case, probably just a bit of lashing out, quite harmless.
You would probably characterise us (Melody and me) as being proponents for the so-called global warming sceptics. In reality we do our best to take a middle stance while, at times, provoking a balanced debate. We have not at this time, however, seen any evidence from the ‘scientific consensus’ that particularly compels us to wholeheartedly embrace that side of the debate. We have though, seen some very compelling stuff from the other side. Professor Auer and the Climate Science Coalition, for example, have presented what seems to be meticulously researched scientific evidence to back up their position. And at this time we do believe that some of the justifications for the ‘coming global catastrophe' to be somewhat misrepresented, especially so in the case of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the issue of CO2 as the prime cause of positive radiative forcing of the world climate.
It seems obvious at this time that Global temperatures seem to be tending upwards, but there is also evidence that it is happening throughout the Solar System. It also seems to be a given that anthropogenic factors contribute to the warming, to what degree this is happening seems to us to be a critical issue in the entire debate. It also seems obvious to us that the public debate, such as it is, is very unbalanced in the favour of the ‘scientific consensus’ or 'climate catastrophists' and no wonder with seemingly, all politicians, the Greens, the mainstream media and global business interests rubbing their collective hands at the capital they can make from this issue. Look at little Johnny Howard’s promoting of Nuclear power stations in Australia over the last couple of days. No doubt you would approve Jay_gee? “ I can smell the uranium on your breath…” Who said that? Just someone who had the guts to stand up against powerful vested interests…
We will do our best, in our small way, on Mysterious New Zealand to help promote a more balanced debate. If this means making enemies of such as you Jay_gee, then so be it!
We are very much conservationists at heart. We would prefer that the trillions of dollars that will be changing hands world-wide (carbon trading) because of the ‘CO2 as pollutant’ belief (much of it in NZ will probably go off shore), would be better spent on the real pollution issues, especially here in New Zealand. Our waterways, fresh and saltwater, for example, are desperately in need of attention etc etc.
You seem to be a capable and industrious individual. With your background and interests you could make a positive contribution in our climate change forums - discussion of facts and evidence of course, not just slagging off and ridiculing...
Jay_gee is, of course, a persona, a character you created to play a part. Only one of many web characters you have created over the years to represent you on the web (including a second alter-ego on this forum - possibly created to get Google page ranking benefits from the link back to the URL you list against the username). It might be said that you have quite a history of misrepresenting yourself. For example, three years blogging as a "pretty" librarian named Natalie. You were only outed when you won a Netguide Award for best blog. There is even a video on YouTube of an interview with you on the Good Morning show discussing Natalie Biz's blog.
You claim on one blog user profile to be a Tiger, when you were actually born in the year of the Rat - not so sexy. "…you cannot believe what you read on the net" as you have said yourself - No, indeed. There are also many other examples of you misrepresenting yourself on the web. Truth does not seem to be a priority in your life...
At least part of the Natalie Biz persona was true, your trade is, or was, a librarian and you spent the years 1997 - 2006 as Librarian (and “Information Enthusiast”) at the MetService Library. BTW, you are still listed in the National Library's online directory of NZ Libraries as Library Manager at the MetService - get them to change it.
:D John did you ever think of working as a private investigator?
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
Location: wellington
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 10:06 am Post Subject:
John Anderson wrote:
So I'm making a guess that hypothesis 3) is pretty close to the mark (we should have run a poll on it). You say that you're not a shill, well, you're not a Tiger either. How about Toady then, does that fit?
Sigh. The mere fact that I once worked for MetService makes me a toady? Nothing to do with the fact that being the librarian there for many years might have given me some opinions as to the accuracy or otherwise of meteorological pronouncments made by others? And I did know Augie, and he was a charming and lovely guy, held in much reverence by the staff. I have nothing against him at all, just his misleading use of science.
Quote:
But we do take issue, as in your case, when an individual misrepresents themselves and behaves in a manner that we feel threatens the core values of Mysterious New Zealand and may tend to stifle debate. We strongly feel that if someone is participating in our forums and representing organisations such as the MetService then such an allegiance should be out in the open and without misrepresentation.
Where have I ever 'mis-represented' myself on MNZ? (admittedly, I may well have entered an incorrect birth-date somewhere. When filling out online forms I usually can't be bothered filling out the correct dob - I usually just pick the last available year from the dropdown box). I do not work for MetService, and am not representing them. My entire argument on this thread has been based around two factors: 1) there was no metservice v. niwa climate change debate, and 2) auer's pronouncement that temperature change doesn't affect atmospheric water absorption was rather silly. Both things I'm confident we can actually agree are true?
Quote:
Look at little Johnny Howard’s promoting of Nuclear power stations in Australia over the last couple of days. No doubt you would approve Jay_gee?
Why would I approve? Or just putting words into my mouth? If you googled a little harder you'd actually find my opinions on energy production in NZ pretty quickly.
Quote:
We will do our best, in our small way, on Mysterious New Zealand to help promote a more balanced debate. If this means making enemies of such as you Jay_gee, then so be it!
An enemy now? As well as a toady? Crikey, way to make a guy feel like he's welcome.
Quote:
You seem to be a capable and industrious individual. With your background and interests you could make a positive contribution in our climate change forums - discussion of facts and evidence of course, not just slagging off and ridiculing...
My 'slagging off' and 'ridiculing' were limited, as far as I can recall, to Auer's slightly ridiculous pronouncements on atmospheric water absorption. If they came across as personal attacks, I apologise - I meant only to point out that he was making an extremely mis-leading statement with the whole 'water in the desert' thing.
Quote:
Only one of many web characters you have created over the years to represent you on the web (including a second alter-ego on this forum - possibly created to get Google page ranking benefits from the link back to the URL you list against the username).
eh? I signed up as Jaygee originally (I think), but forgot my password when I moved computers, so signed up again. And your conspiracy hat is really doing its job properly when you suspect I signed up and started contributing to a forum just for the minor Google page ranking benefits to be derived from one link on my profile page. Sheesh. What was the URL, by the way?
Quote:
Jay_gee is, of course, a persona, a character you created to play a part. Only one of many web characters you have created over the years to represent you on the web
Or just a username? Or am I not being me when I write as Jay_gee? Was there some subtle difference between my Jaygee writings and Jay_gee writings that led you to this conclusion? And 'many' characters? Well, if you count every single login name I've created over the years, then you'd probably be right. But do you seriously believe I actually have different persona for each of those user-names? Or is it just me, writing under a different username?
Quote:
There is even a video on YouTube of an interview with you on the Good Morning show discussing Natalie Biz's blog.
Is there? Oh, yes, I posted it. It's tough to keep things secret when I do that sort of thing. Maybe it was another persona of mine at work. :wink:
Quote:
John did you ever think of working as a private investigator?
Well, given he's got my email address, and that typing the username of that that into google would return dozens of pages of stuff about me, finding out my personal details and splashing them all over the forums was always going to be fairly easy. Interesting though, given the terms and condtions of signing up to the forums...
Quote:
The e-mail address is used only for confirming your registration details and password (and for sending new passwords should you forget your current one) and for keeping you informed of developments on this web site.
...and for investigating your background, it would seem.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:30 pm Post Subject:
It was not suggested that you signed up and started contributing to improve page rankings - you did not 'contribute' (make any postings) under your original username. You originally signed up as noizy, giving reference to your wellingtonista web site.
Naturally, we take note of new registrants. As you know, the URLs members add to their profiles are publicly viewable. Your email address was not googled or used to investigate your background. One visit to that web site and it's not difficult to make the obvious connections, given your initials, a little intuition (yes, unscientific but useful) and the fact that you are a copious poster of personal details under a common nickname on the web anyway, even providing a link to Google search results on yourself in one example.
There was no suggestion of conspiracy, it's a common practise to sign up to forums simply to post URLs and then never make postings - you wouldn't be the first to do it - there are a number of 'never logged in' members on this forum who have URLs listed against their profiles. Perhaps it's merely another case of forgetting your password... We do have password retrieval, you know. :wink:
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:24 pm Post Subject:
It was registered to your gmail address.
Like I said, a visit to the wellingtonista site pretty much sets it all up. You're listed as an editor, linking the nickname noizy with someone whose initials are J G - who happened to join on the same day (as jaygee - as you've noted I have since merged your posts as jaygee with your later posts as jay_gee and deleted the original username).
Having seen your first few posts we just had a sense that you had a MetService connection (I mentioned intuition before - it was pure gut feeling). Searching on your name and MetService turned up a number of references that confirmed the hunch and obviously, you refer to having worked on the metservice website on your personal site as well.
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
Location: wellington
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:42 pm Post Subject:
aha.
Quote:
Like I said, a visit to the wellingtonista site pretty much sets it all up. You're listed as an editor, linking the nickname noizy with someone whose initials are J G - who happened to join on the same day
but can you believe all that? apparently I misrepresent myself on the web all the time. :wink:
