|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
|
|
Ken Ring Weather Forecasting by the Moon
Readers' Comments:
Add a Comment
Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email. Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it.
|
|
Comments:
Not sure whether this fits your blog or not, but I find it good for a giggle when nut-jobs start infighting.
Ken Ring Poo Poos Notion of Aerosols — What Planet Is He Living On?
Thanks for the link Mike. While nut-jobs are always disagreeing with skeptics, it is indeed amusing when they realise that people as nutty as they are don't agree with their pet theory. The comments following Ring's article on chemtrails are typical of conspiracy theorists, with believers in chemtrails convincing themselves that Ring has been bribed to say what he says. Ring himself accused us of exactly this. If someone disagrees with these nutters, Ring included, then evil powers have bought their opposition. It's quite laughable really:
Clare Swinney says:
Takatu says:
John, how the hell did Ken Ring get a blog on Yahoo "news" site?
Unbelievable. When I checked the Yahoo! New Zealand News site there was several articles by Ken Ring listed, and this was at the top of the Opinion page under the heading Yahoo! News Makers: Can we affect the weather? They all appear to be copies of articles from his own website.
It makes a joke of a News site if Ring and his nonsense can be presented as legitimate news. What's next, articles by witches and alien abductees? Ring provides articles that are blatantly false, poorly researched, error ridden and sprinkled with plagiarised text that cater to the lowest intellect, those that desire a fantasy world to match their primitive superstitions and ignorance. On the bright side, some of his articles were getting plenty of comments, and nearly all were scathing. Like you and I Ian, they were stunned that an idiot spouting such ridiculous notions could be given a soapbox on what used to be a respectable site.
My guess is it's probably a typical media ploy. It's like those tabloids that have the likes of 'Page 3 Girls', that need naked boobs to attract the ignorant plebs to their pages. They no doubt think Ring is as bright as a lump of coal but realise his mere presence will attract his ignorant followers as well as the intelligent who are indignant that a so-called News site would take him seriously. And it's worked, you and I have visited and are discussing it. The problem with much of the media is that they are more interested in selling a product than informing the public. One more step in dumbing down society, one more site that we can longer trust to tell us the truth.
Hi John, yeah, Ken Ring has been spewing his nonsense on the Yahoo site for some weeks now. The stupidity of the articles is breathtaking. All seem to be about spreading absolute rubbish about climate change, which could be summed up as follows (in a general sense, the articles are actually just incoherent, unconnected sentences usually containing made-up laughable claims):
1. Humans are small in a world scale sense, and therefore can't influence the climate/weather (Ken seems unable to differentiate between the two).
2. Even if we could influence it, we can't measure the climate in any way at all, therefore climate change can't be happening.
3. Additionally, even if it were happening, the climate has always been changing, therefore humans can't have any effect.
That these pre-school level 'arguments' can be made on a news site strongly suggests they are there just to provoke reaction, similar to the rational behind having Paul Henry or Jeremy Clarkson comment on anything. The problem is that many people will read these articles by Ken Ring, and instead of pointing and laughing at the idiot (which I would think is the appropriate response), will have their conspiracy-theory beliefs strengthened. It's enough to make you want to bang your head against a wall. Repeatedly.
Well done on the webpage, keep up the good work!
We agree John, Yahoo! must have someone on staff that realises how silly Ring's climate change rubbish is. Even if there are arguments against AGW, Ring certainly isn't stating them. He's been allowed to rant simply to provoke and increase traffic to their site. Ring's silly arguments also fit in with his astrological beliefs, where everything is controlled by things out there in the cosmos and we are mere pawns in the scheme of things, unable to influence anything and just along for the ride. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be.
Even Ken Ring doesn't believe in chemtrails —
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/news_makers/post/104/comment/1
I'm not sure which "side" this awesomely bad piece of writing actually helps tho!!
Yes Mike, even when Ring occasionally makes the right call, he ruins it by including his own nonsense:
Gosh, I've read all Ken's stuff on Yahoo and in local smaller newspapers here and dumb web sites (Not the Christchurch Press though — bless them — I believe their staff and reporters are actually intelligent).
The emotional impact with Christchurch people that I know when you mention Ken's name, is a compelling reason why this man must continue to be questioned & probed. Thanks for having the guts to do so.
I think we all have part to play Dave. Whenever someone suggests that we should listen to Ring, one should giggle loudly, and proclaim, 'Wow... I never took you for someone who would listen to a moron who bases his predictions on astrology'.
Re post 338 and Can
we affect the weather?
It's not clever stuff is it?
Ring is not capable of writing clever stuff Baldrick, and if something in one of his articles does appear erudite, it is almost certain that the entire passage has been stolen by Ring from someone else's article, book or website. We have already shown that Ring is a prolific plagiarist, and ever though he has been exposed, he continues to steal text and pass it off as his own. And yet overall, his articles still scream nonsense.
A person told me today they had read an article attributed to Ken Ring that the next destructive magnitude 7 earthquake is likely to be in mid NZ centred somewhere between Marlborough and the Waiarapa around 2015/16.
I found the following cached in Yahoo news that corroborates what I was told. Article attributed to Ken Ring:
The reason I ask that, is because this is the infamous possible history making 20 March 2011 prediction where it seems to me it is predicted that the earthquake would be on a faultline.
I am now very very confused as to whether earthquakes happen on faults or cause faults.
Can you help?
Yes Dave, we can help. Take two aspirin, and repeat this mantra twice daily: Listening to Ken Ring to learn about earthquakes is as worthless as watching Sesame Street to learn about sadomasochism.
Seriously though, you should be pleased that having read Ring's claims you're now very confused, how could you not be? Having listened to Ring, people that aren't then confused obviously haven't fully understood what he's said.
Because the claims Ring makes don't have to match reality and scientific evidence — in his mind at least — he can say anything he wants, even if it contradicts what he has said previously. This is the great advantage of dealing in fantasy, of writing fiction, you can just make things up. Unfortunately, just because Ring's claims go against science and are chock full of contradictions it's no guarantee that other deluded, lazy and ignorant souls won't think it's all true. Just take the masses that blindly flock to religions' holy books, whose claims also contradict science and are full of contradictions. Our experience is that followers of both Ring and religion are generally woefully ignorant of science and history and blindly accept whatever these deluded prophets predict. There is no rational thought involved either on the part of the prophet or the follower. Both are happy to immerse themselves in fantasy and silly beliefs and construct a world where their desires and imagination dictate how the universe functions. While this may be expected from primitive societies and young children, it's depressing that adults willingly retreat into these fantasies. But then Ring's career relies on stupid people.
And as you'll be well aware, Ring has simply set up a vague prediction that no matter where an earthquake occurs, be it on a fault line or not, he can claim to have predicted it. This is typical Ring, making predictions that are so all-encompassing that any and all future earthquakes can be claimed. And while rare, we know that earthquakes can occur far away from tectonic plate boundaries. They're known as intraplate quakes and are utterly unpredictable.
And didn't Ring promise to stop predicting earthquakes? Let's remember that Ring wrote: 'In a recent article on my website I expressed that because of the way some were misinterpreting my intentions, albeit accelerated by the media, it would be best stop talking about potential earthquake timings... I gave that assurance and unless there is some media or politician-led change I do intend to be true to that word'. Regarding his earthquake predictions he also wrote that 'As this is an experiment, if I am incorrect in my dates then I am willing to bow my head in defeat and go back to the drawing boaed' [sic]. His predictions were wrong, and there has been no 'media or politician-led change' that has encouraged him to continue with his astrological nonsense, so why isn't he remaining true to his word and shutting up about earthquakes? Ring just can't trusted, either to keep his word or to grasp that any silly 'astrological fix' he dreams up won't have any affect on earthquakes. Maybe in his fantasy world, but not in the real world where real earthquakes happen.
Are you guys going to get something up about Ken Ring spending an hour on Radio Live this afternoon?
He is bringing out all the crazies!
I didn't hear Ring on Radio Live. Unfortunately he doesn't advise us of his upcoming media appearances, which is a shame since we always enjoy a laugh. But we all know that the moronic masses love nonsense, superstition and scandal and that the media happily panders to them. The likes of Ring will always find avenues to advertise their scams, the real challenge is not to ban or censor these idiots but to educate their potential audience so that they can recognise twaddle when they hear it.
There's a transcript from August 7 on-line:
Were they so impressed with his performance then that they asked him back? But no, checking the website I see he seems to have had a couple of slots on there lately. Anyways, from the Aug 7 session:
Apparently seismologists have been monitoring all this activity on Tongariro & keeping very quiet about it because 'it would lead back to the moon'. (D'oh, why didn't I think of that?) He also seems to think that solar eclipses are linked to seismic events. He also says that 'solar wind speed is up by 20% over the last couple of days', to which I must respond 'o rly?' and 'citations please'. Solar wind velocities vary quite a bit (http://mms.rice.edu/realtime/forecast.html) & just eyeballing the graphs at that link suggest a 20% change over a day is nothing unusual.
Claims to have predicted Tongariro before the event- tweet linking solar wind, king tides & some event; apparently without naming Tongariro in the tweet mind you, but says he does so on his website.
Claims that GNS is 'not being truthful' by not letting people know about Tongariro in advance... It's their job to warn people, he says. Whereupon the interviewer asks, where's the next volcano going to go off do you think? Ken responds 'I dunno, you can't work out exactly where and what time & how big it's going to be, you can only point out risk times, risk periods & risk reasons.' (A 'risk reason' seems to be the imminent solar eclipse - there's a full eclipse that'll be visible from Australia on November 14 this year...)
Ah well, back to the grind. (Thank you for a good excuse for a diversion!)
Hi Alison. Thanks for the link and info. So Ring claims to have predicted the Tongariro eruption? Why isn't that surprising? Ring is infamous for claiming to have predicted events AFTER the events have happened. I once heard the rumour that he claimed to have predicted the demise of the dinosaurs and the French Revolution too.
I like how he creates the conspiracy that GNS is 'not being truthful' in hiding advance knowledge of the Tongariro eruption. But then elsewhere he claims that GNS are ignorant as to what causes volcanic eruptions and earthquakes so how could they hide what they don't know? He can't have it both ways. If they knew when Tongariro was going to erupt then that means that their theories are correct and not Ring's crackpot ideas. If Ring's ideas about volcanoes are correct, then GNS knew nothing and thus had nothing to hide.
In addition to this, Ring thinks it's his destiny to warn us of extreme events, so why wasn't he loudly and CLEARLY warning us of Tongariro BEFORE the event? Was he colluding with GNS to hide the truth of Tongariro from us? He's always very quick to accuse others of negligence or worse, but he can never explain why he hides his predictions until after the fact. He'll say that the media doesn't ask for his predictions, which of course would be a lie since he was talking on radio in this example. But even if this were the case, he could easily prove the validity of his predictions by lodging them with a lawyer or sending them to the media BEFORE the events happened, proving that they were true and accurate predictions. We would soon take notice of his successful predictions, but strangely he refuses to do this. We think that it is Ring that is not being truthful.
As for Ring's all-encompassing 'risk times, risk periods & risk reasons', we already know that he makes them so vague and so widespread that pretty much any hour of any day at any place is a time and place that extreme or benign weather, earthquakes and brain eating zombies might strike. If you asked Ring about important health risk factors, he would probably say that being alive is the major risk factor, and that the time between your birth and death is when you're most likely to suffer ill health. Outside that window, you can relax.
Why hasn't The Ring picked this?
Mt. Fuji May Be Close To Erupting
And the story just above it was:
The Motivated Rejection of Science
And it's only Saturday.[??]
We must remember Miles that if Mt. Fuji erupts, then Ring definitely WILL tell us that he knew, but he'll only reveal this knowledge AFTER it has.
I enjoyed the bit about the research that found that 'those who subscribed to one or more conspiracy theories... were more likely to reject the findings from climate science as well as other sciences'. It fits Ring perfectly. Expanded articles on this can found here:
What motivates rejection of (climate) science?
Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?
Hi John, just debating something with Ken Ring. In your Silly Beliefs column you state that he did not predict the March 2012 weather bomb and instead wrote "March 3, Saturday Isolated showers in Southland, Otago and South Canterbury. Showers in the North Island but scattered to the east. Fine elsewhere. March 4, Sunday Mainly fine, but isolated showers still possible. ". Ken claims he did predict it by saying in his summary on p132 that he predicted rain in Wellington and Nelson. I do not have an Almanac to check either statement. Do you have a page reference for his earlier (March 3/March 4) prediction?
Seems he thinks he can predict two contradictory things in different parts of a book, wait until after the event, and then choose the correct one and claim he was right (albeit out by a couple of hundred kms....)
Thanks.
Hi Brian. Sorry, like you, I don't have his latest Almanac, I have better things to spend my money on. I consulted the one at my local library, so I don't have the page numbers for his March 3 & March 4 predictions. But anyone with an Almanac, eg Ring, can easily find the relevant pages. Ring provides 'detailed' day forecasts where he devotes an entire page to every day of the year.
As I explained to Ken in comment # 316, after he childishly tried to claim that he did predict the weather bomb (#315), no where in his book, in his summary or elsewhere, did he predict the storm in Taranaki. Nelson is not Taranaki.
Ring seems to have no idea what a truly useful prediction would entail. All you say is correct, he produces contradictory predictions, reveals one of them after the event and pretends that missing a region by several hundred kilometres (or several days) still counts as a hit. I wonder if he goes into his local Lotto shop each week and argues that his losing ticket is actually a winner, since in the big world of numbers, 38 is quite close to 40, and 3 is close to 6. And in Ring's fantasy world, that means his tickets, whatever random numbers they might have, are always close enough to those winning numbers that Lotto are so fussy about. But I did predict the correct numbers!! Sure you did Ken.
If you're debating with Ken, I assume you've just started, since he quickly loses patience with anyone who questions his methods or calls for evidence, and will soon liken you to Nazis or Stalinists before skulking back to Ringworld. Which is a place a little like the Vatican in Rome, a little world fuelled by fantasy situated in greater Auckland.
Dear Silly Beliefs, I was just wondering what influence the earth has on the moon in respect of moon weather and if the moon has "quakes" — given that having read Kens writings and heard his talks on some silly radio stations, it is always about the influence of the moon on earth. To your knowledge has Ken published any articles about earths influence on the moon re weather and quakes up there?
I kind of feel that if Ken talks about the moons effect on earth in respect of weather and earthquakes, then he should have knowledge about the reverse and that I should be entitled to ask my question — "so what is the effect of the earth on the moons weather and does the moon have quakes, and if so how frequently, where, and does the moon have tectonic plates? (because there are certainly no oceans up there bashing against them — and my research tells me no whales either). If they do have quakes when is the next one due — and is it possible to ascertain within 500 kilometres — where on the moon — perhaps the Northern Sea of Serenity, or Sea of Fertility South Western Limb?"
I would also invite Ken to answer not only those questions — but also this one — "whilst the moon may exert some gravitational force in earth — what is the difference between the moon's gravitational force on the earth compared to the earth's gravitational force on the moon — is the earth gravitational force 20, 100, 1000 times greater or what?"
I just think that if Ken talks about the moon's effects on earth then I would be interested to know what the effect of the earth is on the moon.
Hi Dave. When you ask about the moon's weather, we would say that the moon has no weather. My dictionary defines weather as: 'The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure'. Since the moon has no atmosphere it can't by definition have weather. But in Ringworld things are different. Ring is on record stating that 'the state of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the weather' and 'Weather cannot arise from air or anything in air...' and that 'There are planets with weather but no atmosphere. Just google that if you don't believe me'. While I can't recall Ring saying that the moon has weather, based on these quotes of his it seems that the moon could well have weather ... which no doubt is just as unpredictable to astrologers and farmers on the moon as it is to astrologers and farmers here on Earth.
As for quakes on the moon, yes the moon does have moonquakes. Have a read of this interesting article: NASA Science: Moonquakes. The moon doesn't have tectonic plates to cause its quakes, but then Ring doesn't believe quakes are caused by plate movement anyway. The moon does have tides (in the land) caused by the earth for the same reason that the moon causes tides in the Earth's seas (and to a much lesser degree, in the land and atmosphere).
However, since the moon has no atmosphere, the earth's influence on the moon can have no effect on its non-existent weather. But since Ring's theories on quakes are based on the gravitational influence between the earth and the moon, and nothing to do with plate tectonics, then Ring should most certainly be able to predict when and where quakes will occur on the moon. Unfortunately his excuse will be that there are no widespread devices on the moon for recording quakes (or weather) and no one is interested anyway, so he won't waste his time predicting them. And if Ring did arrogantly predict a quake on the far side of the moon on Xmas Day, how could anyone ever prove him wrong? But certainly the 'ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' that Ring uses should be able to predict weather and quakes on any planet or moon in the solar system. But first Ring would need some gullible alien on Mars or Titan that was prepared to pay for his predictions.
As for your question, 'what is the difference between the moon's gravitational force on the earth compared to the earth's gravitational force on the moon', this is a trickier question. The gravitational force is the same, as this article explains: Gravitational Interactions of the Earth and Moon, stating that 'the force the Earth exerts on the Moon is numerically identical to the force the Moon exerts on the Earth'. It goes on to say that 'each exerts a force on the other which, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion (the Law of Action and Reaction), is equal and opposite to the force that the other is exerting on it; but although the forces are equal, their effects are not, because the more massive Earth is accelerated less by the same force, than the less massive Moon'.
Ring is correct in that it is the moon that has the greatest effect on our tides, greater than the sun even though the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun is actually 180 times greater than the gravitational force between the Earth and the moon. This is because, though much bigger, the sun is much further away. It is the Sun's tidal forces that are less than the moon's, not its gravitational force. This is where looking solely at the gravitational force can be misleading. And things get more complicated when you consider the basis of Ring's theory, that the moon's gravity (and to a much lesser extent the sun's gravity) causes the earth's weather. However Ring doesn't really understand the crucial difference between the gravitational force between two bodies and the tidal forces between those two bodies. While gravitational forces cause tidal forces, it is the strength of the tidal forces that determine tides, not the gravitational force per se. For example, a swimming pool right next to an ocean won't experience any tides even though the ocean will, and yet they both essentially experience the same gravitational force. The gravitational force doesn't suddenly increase when you step from the pool to the ocean, but the tidal forces do.
However there is no evidence, contrary to Ring's mythology, that tidal forces between the moon and earth cause our weather or earthquakes. But Ring should claim, if he understands his method, that he can predict weather and quakes on the moon. But again, my guess is that Ring will sidestep this challenge by simply saying that it doesn't make economic sense to put out an almanac for the moon. Let's remember, that unlike science that seeks knowledge for knowledge sake, Ring is in this for the money, not the enlightenment of the masses.
Yesterday we were alerted to the fact that weather and earthquake astrologer Ken Ring is still crawling through the fetid sewer that the world knows as Ringworld. His latest piece of fantasy writing is 'The Climate of Science Change', and Ring's inclusion on the nz.news.yahoo.com site is redefining the term 'news', with some people confusing Ring's fantasies with reality. Ring's article is nothing but a disjointed, rambling piece of nonsense, and not worth reading, so don't say you weren't warned. But we were directed to one of Ring's comments following his article, which we found amusing. For someone that has had the arrogance to threaten us with legal action for (nonexistent) defamation, it's revealing that Ring doesn't believe or grasp that defamation laws also apply to him. In response to a reader's comment, Ring replies:
If you've read our article debunking Ken Ring's forecast nonsense, or glanced at any other article or blog post on our site, you'll have found no support on our part for fascism, racism or homophobia, nor for that matter, any books or weather forecasts for sale. If, like Ken Ring, you can detect racism, homophobia or a Shopping Cart icon on this site then either English is not your first, or second, language, or you're just not too bright. But misunderstanding our comments is not what causes Ring to vent his spleen and concoct lies and untruths. So what is it that terrifies Ring so and motivates him to defame us? That's simple really: blind fear of business failure — his business — brought about by our exposure of the nonsense that he promotes.
Does this ongoing defamation by Ring upset or concern us? Not at all. Contrary to Ring's unsupported claims, there is no commercial bias to our criticism of his 'astrological science'. We simply challenge his claims because we believe they are wrong, and that selling a falsehood to a gullible public is unethical. Commercially we are not concerned that people might believe him, since we have no business to lose. And reputation wise, if some people are so intellectually challenged that they believe Ring's claims, then we are already worlds apart and their view of us doesn't worry us at all. If we feel anything, it would be pity and disappointment that ignorance is still rife in the 21st century.
On the other hand, that Ring has to resort to blatant lies in a childish attempt to combat our claims is in one sense quite reassuring. It means we're doing something right. It is a clear sign of utter desperation on his part, of bleak resignation that rational argument has deserted him, that material evidence and support has eluded him, that the only option left open to someone with questionable morals and a shady business to promote is to defame his critics. Ring needs to belittle our site and dismiss our criticism by fair means or foul. And fair means, in the sense of rational argument, didn't work for him, so that only leaves foul means.
If Ring made rational challenges regarding our reasoning, our logic or our science then we would have cause for concern, but he does not. Since Ring can't dismiss the embarrassing facts that show his claims and comments to be nothing but childish and primitive nonsense, then in frantic desperation Ring resorts to the tools of the scoundrel, the miscreant, the cheat, the liar and the con-man. He resorts to lies, deceptions, untruths and vile insults. He attacks the person in a shameful attempt to distract readers from the real argument. Known as ad hominem, this form of attack is normally a clear sign of someone who lacks a rational response. Devoid of any real argument, Ring falls back on threats, insults and lies.
The trouble is that Ring pretends that he has no idea what a real argument is. Even if we were fascist, racist homophobes — which we deny utterly — this would in no way automatically mean that our criticism of Ring's views must therefore be false. If a racist claims that the world is round or a homophobe claims intelligent design is bogus, they are both still correct, even though you may disagree with their views on race or homosexuality. Likewise, even if we did sell books and forecasts in competition to Ring, again this does not automatically mean our criticism of Ring's views must therefore be false. If his logic is correct, that people in competition with each other naturally lie and cheat to defame the other, then Ring is admitting that he is also lying and cheating to combat the claims of his perceived competitors, eg the MetService. On the other hand, if Ring claims that he can criticise and be in competition with the likes of the MetService without making up lies about them, then why can't we be equally honest? Why does Ring make the bogus and offensive assertion that our disagreement with his views are manufactured lies based on our competitive streak and/or a deep seated hatred of those with views different to ours? Again, it's a simple fear response, he's running scared and is falling back on ancient reptilian instincts.
And yet Ring is too cowardly to go to the mainstream media and repeat his insults, such as calling us 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazis' or insisting that we 'hate Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews [and] people of... immigrant cultures and descents'. Too cowardly to make public his childish conspiracy theory claims that Silly Beliefs is nothing but a front for major corporations in competition with him, a website designed solely to malign him. He has falsely accused us of slander, threatened us with legal action, and yet is too cowardly to go ahead and expose us. If he believes in his claims, and has the evidence to support them, why does he only whisper his accusations in the equivalent of back alleys? And why, more importantly, does he never follow up his accusations with the evidence that supports them? When challenged, by us or others on other blogs, why does Ring immediately throw a hissy fit, and with insults flying in a skunk-like fashion, quickly retreats into the sewers once more? Simple, Ring has no evidence to support his claims. And by definition of course, lies can never be supported.
Ring lies because he is desperate to promote his business, a fraudulent business based on primitive, superstitious nonsense. He lies because lies are the only option left open to him, with truth and reason and evidence playing on the opposing team. And he throws insults because insults are the defensive response of those caught lying. Creating yet more lies to prop up previous lies and in a fit of blind rage, Ring is driving fast down a dead end road with a cliff at the end. It can only end badly for him.
As expected, after reading the above post Ring has not attempted in any way to support his lies and insults. Instead he has gone on a witch-hunt, no doubt consulting some poor cat's paws in an attempt to reveal who might have passed on his venomous comments. But primitive prophesy has always caused the innocent to suffer the wrath of ignorant soothsayers, and Ring has now gone on to accuse an innocent commenter on the Yahoo site of being a tattletale. Ring doesn't seem to grasp that while Internet users can't make comments on that site without having a Yahoo ID, we can still all read the comments. So again Ken, we repeat, you are throwing accusations and insults at an innocent party, but nothing out of the ordinary for you I guess. Instead of trying to hide your embarrassing defamation by frantically finding and shooting the messenger, why don't you grow a backbone and support your vile accusations. We're waiting.
But seriously, since Ring can't defend the indefensible, we'll move on to his latest example of verbal diarrhoea and yet more evidence that our criticism of him is really hitting the spot. We've changed the commenter's ID to 'Commenter X' since we don't want to exacerbate Ring's error.
Note that Ring states: 'Whoever has been leaking what is here... needs to be brought to account because it amounts to public thievery' What nonsense, designed solely to threaten, as if real laws have been broken, as if his privacy has been invaded. The Yahoo site is a public forum and all comments are public. It's like accusing someone of theft who relates a newspaper article to a friend. You can't 'leak' information that is published in a public forum. Grow up Ken. If you're embarrassed over what you said, then stop saying it, if not, then be a man and defend your beliefs as we do.
But in his false accusation Ring makes no attempt whatsoever to defend his criticism of us. He merely issues new insults: 'jackboot-kick-in-the-guts attack — nasty-minded little bigots — bullies — cyber-bigots'. The only correct statement he makes is that our exposure of his method is indeed an 'attempt to diminish my business and lessen potential interest', but then we've already clearly said that. At least something is getting through.
Note that he also angrily demands an apology from Commenter X, and implies that no one else should relay his insults to us in the future. And yet Ring apparently has no inkling that perhaps it is us who deserve an apology. And if not an apology, at least the evidence as to why his apparent insults and lies are not defamation. But as usual, we expect we will only come across Ring blubbering behind our backs that we at Silly Beliefs are out to get him. Well, actually that bit is true.
But it's not a full time vocation, merely an enjoyable hobby among many.
P.S. As a reward for reading this far, we offer another of Ken Ring's many false claims for your amusement. We stumbled across it in his article 'Planets and Earthquakes', and it yet again highlights his ignorance of the very subject that he claims to be an expert in. Remember that knowing the correct size of the planets and their size relationship to the Sun and the Earth is crucial to his forecasting method. He writes:
Three readers have pointed us to an unusual media article, one that doesn't pander to the slack-jawed yokels in society. First reported in the Greymouth Star, then in the Star, a bi-weekly free paper in Christchurch, and now in the NZ Herald, it's great to see that at least some media have finally got on board with accurately investigating and reporting on the pseudoscientific claims of NZ's weather astrologer, the result being the article: 'Moon man' Ken Ring gets it wrong, and even a mention in a 'Herald on Sunday' editorial: 'It's a tough job predicting the future — just ask Ken Ring'.
The article highlights how badly wrong Ring got his predictions regarding the South Island hydro lakes region and the West Coast, 'with no mention of the torrential downpours that caused severe flooding and slips which closed road and rail links last week'.
We also note that in this article: 'Ken Ring's Christmas Day forecast', he predicted that 'Christmas Day will be fine and dry in nearly all areas of New Zealand, he says, while the new year opens wet for most'. Of course we now know that he was wrong again, completely failing to see the remnants of Cyclone Evan that struck Samoa and Fiji moving on to the North Island at Xmas.
But look at how vague and non-committal that prediction was. If it rains where you are, then remember he didn't say it would be fine and dry everywhere, he said 'nearly all areas'. Unless you know what weather every other area in NZ received, you can still assume he was correct and you were in the unfortunate area he referred to.
He also said in that article that 'The North Island bathes in sunshine for the first half of January...', but note that he has also said that 'the new year opens wet for most'. How can it be both wet and bathed in sunshine? This is why some morons think Ring can predict the weather, he makes contradictory forecasts that cover all the bases. No matter what happens he has 'predicted' it.
In his article 'Summer outlook', Ring predicted that for 2013 'January is likely to be remembered as often dry and sunny with heat waves, and little rain except for some around the 19th and 28th for both islands'. He repeated this prediction in this article: 'Moon Man Ken Ring's summer predictions': 'Mr Ring predicts this summer will be drier than normal for most of the country'. So a great time to get outdoors and perhaps experience some of the country's tramping tracks, like the Milford Track. So why then did we see news reports of the Milford Track being closed due to torrential downpours, with trampers trapped in huts? Why were many New Year fireworks celebrations around the country ruined by rain? Whatever country or year Ring is predicting as 'often dry and sunny with heat waves, and little rain', it's not NZ in 2013.
Far too often gullible reporters simply believe and slavishly report whatever Ken Ring feeds them, when even a cursory glance at his predictions and the real world, coupled with a basic high school education, would show him to be living in a fantasy world. The above 'Herald on Sunday' editorial is appropriately titled: 'Predicting the future, it's a game for mugs', and Ken Ring fits the profile perfectly. But we must remember that soothsayers like Ring only have a public profile and loyal fan base because generally the media either report his claims uncritically or simply ignore him. Either way the public, hearing nothing that debunks his claims, fall back on that old chestnut: Well maybe there's something to his predictions, since you never hear the experts challenging him.
I was astounded to hear a news report on 'Radio NZ National' on the eve of the predicted Dec 21st 2012 armageddon. They interviewed an astronomer working for NASA who rubbished the prediction, but they then decided to get the view of a NZ expert. And who did they ask? Ken Ring!! To his credit he also rubbished the prediction, but what fool decided that a weather and earthquake astrologer was the expert that we NZers should consult? I was embarrassed to think that some of our neighbours, eg Oz, might think that when the going gets tough, NZers ring up an astrologer for advice on whether we should panic. How can we blame the public for thinking that Ken Ring is a respected expert when he is portrayed as the NZ version of a NASA scientist? Of all the real experts we have in NZ, to ignore them all and consult Ken Ring demonstrates true ignorance.
And it's this ignorance that keeps Ring's little fantasy bubble intact. If people would just be a little more critical in viewing Ring's claims, he would soon go the way of fairies, pixies and evil trolls, with no one believing in him.
Hi John, I wouldn't worry too much about what Australia thinks of you, we have our own home grown gullible idiots here, also known as channel 7. Ken was doing his random guesses for 2013 on the Sunrise programme the other day http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/watch/85d6e9e0-2662-3984-89ff-4cf41feda9eb/2013-weather-predictions/ David Koch is the interviewer, highly knowledgeable when it comes to matters of finance, he would never allow a financial scam artist onto his program. But when it comes to matters of science, or in this case pseudoscience, he's just as vacuous as the rest of them. What bothers me most about this interview is he makes no attempt to point out that Ken's "theory" is not supported by the mainstream. He is presented as a "weather expert". For the general public there is no way of knowing that this guy has no credibility whatsoever, he could work for BoM for all they know. And his forecasts will quickly travel down the grapevine as "they said", people will forget that it was Ken Ring who made them.
I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that he is already wrong. In the summary on his web page http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=440&type=home he says:
Cyclones not expected in JANUARY until in the last few days of month..."
Also, we've just suffered through a record breaking heat wave across the country, Ken didn't mention that. He did say there would be one in March:
Possible heat wave across country first week March (at or near 6th-7th)"
No doubt channel 7 won't follow up on any of this, but it was good to see a few in the NZ media finally growing a brain.
Hi Graham, thanks for your comments. Yes Ken makes a big deal here of his celebrity spot on your Channel 7, I think he sees himself as equivalent to the likes of Tom Cruise or John Travolta. Of course since they're both deluded nutters too, only with them its Scientology not astrology, so perhaps in one sense he's right.
Of course I'm not surprised that his predictions for you guys are wrong as well, since as that computer saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out.
And you're right about interviewers like David Koch. Why is it that normally intelligent, skeptical interviewers turn into lazy, gullible, star-struck morons when they do silly fluff pieces on nonsense topics such as weather astrologers, ghosts, UFO sightings etc? It seems to be a worldwide phenomena. Are they being forced by management to play the idiot for the sake of the slack-jawed yokels in society, or does their brain slip into neutral when they cover certain stories?
I had a spare bit of time at work, so decided to write the following piece based on our friend Ken's bull crap, especially in relation to the current summer.
Ken Ring runs a website called PredictWeather, publishes an annual almanac with 12 months forecasts for multiple markets, and also republishes his articles on Yahoo's Website.
In the past he has linked moon cycles and positions to earthquakes, claiming he predicted the Christchurch earthquakes. Ken also links the moon to significant weather events such as Hurricane Sandy which struck the east coast of America in 2012.
Ken's method of predicting weather goes against mainstream methodologies, as he claims he can predict weather in relation to the phases and positioning of the moon.
Ken has often derided agencies such as NIWA and the Metservice saying they have vested interests and receive Government funding when he as an independent who provides more accuracy in his almanac receives none from the Government.
It's easy to mock Ken Ring, of which I think SKY TV is doing it brilliantly with their old man time commercial promoting MYSKY. (It may not have been intentional, but the old man with the hour glass looking disappointed when he says "boom" and the sun doesn't rise is a perfect fit), but let's judge him by his results.
I have taken excerpts from Ken's predictions for summer and compare them to what actually is happening.
On January 15, a post was published "Is Summer about to end?", this started with the first few paragraphs of
"Sadly the run of dry weather could be about to end for Auckland this coming weekend, as northeasterlies prepare to take over after 18 January and then last for the rest of the month, bringing the potential for rain every few days.
The ensuing northeasterly airstreams are then expected to continue off and on until around 18 February. There are other fine intervals for Auckland to come, such as 30 January to 4 February and the last week of February, but apart from a few days around 23 February these days may not be as warm."
As an Aucklander, I can tell you this was so far from the reality of what happened, I would have been better consulting my cat and seeing whether it's cleaning behind its ears.
Further on in the article he wrote
"what is still in store for January? For Auckland, some heavy downpours are expected between 19-21 January. The lead-up to Anniversary Weekend may be dry but some rain is likely on that weekend itself, with more in eastern districts than in the west. Skies then clear about 29 January for about 6 days before rain returns to hamper Waitangi Day celebrations."
Just want to say Auckland had a fantastic Waitangi day with no rain at all. Weather history can be checked on metservice for the past 30 days to verify this.
And the last piece of bullshit in this article reads
"Overall, February may be sunny and mild but rain in the first week breaks a dry spell. Around 8th, there may be heavy rains and floods for North Island and the West Coast of South Island but overall rain should be around average for both islands for that month"
But no heavy rain or flooding in February for NZ, so what is the damn point of Ken having a forecast at all? It was so inaccurate and insulting, yet unfortunately his ramblings keep keeping published on Yahoo.
His latest blog was published 26th Feb on Yahoo.
Now apart from his failure to remotely recognise the inaccuracy of what he previously published, he has the insolence to pretend it's giving hope to the farmers with his headline "Hang on farmers, rain is coming".
He now writes in this latest piece
"In January Auckland only had 4 light rain days, but Wellington had 10 rain days, with over 60mm falling in the 4 days between 14th-18th, 26mm of that falling during one day."
Now that's accurate, but doesn't closely match what he wrote in the earlier piece
"For Auckland, some heavy downpours are expected between 19-21 January"
With inaccuracy as bad as that, wouldn't you revaluate your methods if that was your prediction? And not claim you can predict the weather because everything is linked to the moon cycles?
If Ken Ring admitted he got things wrong and changed his method and stopped pretending he has some powers outside the world of science, perhaps I would give him some slack, but he doesn't, and continues to write junk like "So the question being asked is whether or not a drought is imminent. The answer is no."
See the farmers in Northland Ken Ring, see the farmers in the Waikato Ken Ring. See the Farmers having to get rid of stock because they don't have enough feed because of drought conditions. I guess technically he might be right, the drought isn't imminent, because it's already here.
I don't care if he convinces himself he is right, but when he publishes his poorly written inaccurate articles on public websites, he deserves to be called out for being the fraud and charlatan that he is.
So the next time you have a friend/co-worker or acquaintance who says Ken Ring is accurate, remember the summer of 2013, and Ken's poor writing style, lack of accuracy and point out that it's not true. Your friend/acquaintance won't be too offended, as it's not like you are saying they are lying, but merely that Ken Ring is a fraud without a clue.
Excellent work Rob, you're correct that Ring's astrological weather predictions bear no resemblance to reality. On the rare occasion that they may do so, it's all due to chance, a fluke. To confidently proclaim back in Feb: 'Hang on farmers, rain is coming', when according to his predictions it's already been, is beyond a joke. I fail to understand why farmers, at least according to Ring, swallow his lies and continue to support him. Is it similar to religion, where people desire simple explanations for a complicated world and refuse to think too deeply about what devious and/or stupid, deluded people tell them? Recognising Ring as a fraud is not rocket science, even my cat laughs at his predictions.
Unfortunately, your wondering why Ring won't admit to blatant errors and embarrassing mistakes and why he won't wake up to the nonsense he's pushing is like me expecting to hear Pope Benedict admit that God doesn't exist, and that's actually why he's resigned. Ring, and Benedict, will never admit, at least not publicly, that there no evidence for their silly beliefs, both knowing that they must keep up the façade to maintain their lifestyle and celebrity.
As we both know, Ring derides the likes of NIWA and the Metservice because they are his competition. Because of their success and public acceptance, it means that everyone who follows their forecasts will never buy his astrology books on the weather. Of course he claims that it's all an evil conspiracy to destroy his business, supported in part by Christians trying to suppress pagan superstition, but then all deluded nutters make similar conspiracy claims.
Ahh yes, it is so easy to mock Ken Ring, and you're right that that advert where the natural world takes no notice of Old-Man-Time's proclamations is reminiscent of Ring's antics. The crucial difference being that Old-Man-Time realises that the world works differently to what he believed, and elects to watch a movie rather than continue with his efforts that obviously don't work. Ring has not yet realised that when he yells 'Rain' that neither the earth, the moon nor the atmosphere obey him. In times gone by, Ken's silly beliefs would have seen him safely ensconced in a padded room, wrapped securely in a straightjacket. In these enlightened times he unfortunately gets to run free and infect others that, being not too bright, easily succumb to the nonsense virus.
Ken Ring also has a twitter account (https://twitter.com/kenringweather).
It's priceless. He's unable to retrospectively change his tweets like his articles on his website. He blocks people like me who have been tweeting to point out his continuing stream of failed rain (and earthquake) predictions for this summer, but its great that even an idiot looking at his tweets over the last two months can see clearly what a complete load of rubbish his forecast are.
Thanks Gerald, I'd forgotten about his silly twittering. They really do expose his blatant lies, especially as the NI goes into official widespread drought conditions. As you've said, just look at some of his predictions:
However I would disagree with your comment 'that even an idiot looking at his tweets over the last two months can see clearly what a complete load of rubbish his forecast are'. Ken hasn't, and as idiots go, they don't come more qualified.
The twerp just tweeted (https://twitter.com/kenringweather)
Is he trying to make it easy for us to mock him? I have distributed my piece to a few hundred people so far... who have passed it on as well..
The more people that see his duplicity the better....
Ken's attempts to alter his failed predictions really are quite childish. That he thinks he might fool people is revealing of his intellect and that of his clients. A drought means: 'A long period of abnormally low rainfall, especially one that adversely affects growing or living conditions'. If dry conditions don't linger then it's not a drought. Questioning whether a drought is lingering is as silly as wondering if a death was fatal or the rain was wet.
But this childish nonsense is typical from Ring, continually forced by reality to explain away his ongoing failures.
To create and maintain a scam facts have to be suppressed, lies must be told, documents must be altered, science has to be discredited, failures have to be hidden, and morons with cash must be found. Ring understands this but struggles to master the skills required. A lie only succeeds if we don't see through it and hiding a mistake only works if it remains hidden. Fortunately Ring's lies and alterations are only too transparent to people prepared to think, to critically consider what he says, and to question whether astrological nonsense can foresee a tall, dark rain cloud in our future.
This tweet is gold:
Classic!
Well spotted Jamie. Ring clearly claims droughts happen like clockwork 'every 4-5 years', but those droughts show varying gaps of 3, 4, 5 and 6 years. Very sloppy work from someone who taught maths to children. But Ring has no problem with fudging the figures to create patterns where there are none. And I wonder if they were similar NZ wide droughts, today's news reports say that this is the first time in 30 years that the entire NI has been in drought. So obviously they weren't 'all as bad as this one'.
Of course this pattern, if it was real and well known to Ring, raises the obvious question: if he knew without doubt that one was due in 2013, then why, why, why didn't he predict it? Why did he confidently write that regarding whether we should be worried about a 2013 drought, 'The answer is no'. Why did he attempt to hide this drought from us, did he not want us to worry?
Hi, John. I have just been looking at Ring's Twitter page.
It looks to me like he's forecasting only a few days ahead — I suspect he's using this site http://www.metvuw.com/ for his "forecasts." James started it when he was at Victoria Uni — looks like he's spun it off into a separate company since there's no mention (that I can find) on the site of Victoria Uni.
I use metvuw for all my weather forecasts. Pretty reliable, and rather more an exercise in statistics than checking for damp stones or channelled Celts (or whatever).
What is already written here mostly says it all but decided to add a little more because Ken and his forecasts and expensive almanac infuriate me. Today his latest free (who would pay) newsletter arrived. All repeat words from last edition. Over the months I've taken notes and checked as many others surely do. I found he has been accurate in the overall synopsis of the individual months August 2012 to February 2013 then even that went wrong for March. Trouble is what use are these broad statements except to maybe a small minority. I live in Christchurch. For March Ken said for rain days in Canterbury "lots" 12 in all. Well, far as I'm aware CH.CH. is Canty. We had 2 rain days only, the 18th and 19th. Period. He mentioned flooding for Blenheim, Nelson/Motueka and various NI areas. No floods. Now I read him crowing about how accurate he was for summer but bypasses any in-depth recap about March. The big mystery here is why oh why do people buy his pricey book. Especially farmers, who I regard as intelligent business people. Based on Kens newsletters those books have to be full of erroneous data. Do prospective clients not indulge in some basic research before shelling out big bucks? More money than sense, or a fool and his money are soon parted as my grandmother always used to say. Do people see only an attractive almanac or website and believe this all has to be backed by a very intelligent, highly educated mind, so it has to be right? I'm simply left shaking my head frequently.
I think we both know the answer to your question Ron is no. People never do any basic research before handing over money for Ken Ring's book. It's the same as those morons that waste good money buying horoscopes and Bibles, any basic research would quickly reveal that these books are all based on ancient, superstitious nonsense and they would remain on the selves gathering dust. But as you say, people see Ring's Almanac (and horoscopes and Bibles) proudly displayed in respectable bookshops and naively assume that 'a very intelligent, highly educated mind' must be behind them. They couldn't be more wrong. As they say, the Bible was written by people that thought the earth was flat and that snakes and donkeys could talk. While Ring's work of fantasy has no talking animals, its science is just as flawed and its prophecies are just as silly as those in the Bible and in horoscopes. Like devious Christian apologists Ring cunningly tries to skirt around his many failed prophecies, and like you, I'm stunned at the number of people that blindly buy his lies. As the saying goes, 'There's a sucker born every minute', and Ring takes full advantage of this.
So tired of pointing out his crap, as must you be....
And now March is over...
Let's look at his prediction
His prediction for March "March: Wet with heavy rains and floods." as published THURSDAY JANUARY 31,
Sigh.... Will be great when his ramblings disappear...
Unfortunately Rob, like priests spouting religious nonsense, Ring and his deluded prophecies aren't going to disappear any day soon. One, his scam pays his bills and funds his lifestyle. Two, he craves the minor celebrity. And three, again like religious proponents, part of him desperately wishes that he lived in a simpler time, when it was naively believed that superstitious nonsense ruled the world, and that sacrificing a goat or checking which star sign the moon was in could predict the future.
Like religion, where it's seldom that priests, ministers, pastors and nuns can be shown the error of their ways and their personal belief must die with them, the only sensible option is to educate their potential followers, those that are not yet completely blinded to the power of reason and evidence. Only when people giggle and treat Ring like the clown he used to be (and some would argue, still is), will his prophecies cease to be mentioned in civilised company. We cannot hope that Ring will willingly desist, like the annoying flu virus he will be with us for the near future, we must simply build up our defences against him and his nonsense, which includes ensuring that our family, friends and associates all get the critical thinking vaccine.
John, your words above — "his scam pays his bills and funds his lifestyle" — is the crux of my anger in my earlier message re. his clients. If Ken is getting the same proportional percentage of clients out of Australia and Ireland then his business has a very lucrative potential indeed. While most work in honest jobs or businesses, Ken continues in this scam and flourishes even though it has been proven over and over that his information is mostly wrong. Any real accuracies surely must be mainly coincidence, that's how I see it. Amazing isn't it? But that's life I guess. Ken has his nice little niche.
Yes Ron, like you I assume Ken is on to a good little money making scam. In the past Ken has claimed that his weather astrology business was struggling, that he was doing it to help people rather than make money, but I doubt that. Only a small proportion of the population will ever be silly enough to fall for his nonsense, but when you add Australia and Ireland to the mix, the extra numbers would easily make his business quite profitable. After all, his business was already a success when he targeted just NZ, so expanding to other larger countries can only mean higher sales.
People that believe in Ring are no different to those that throw money at psychic mediums, you'll never convince true believers that they're being conned. As you say, that's life. There will always be people who can't think beyond the basics and people like Ring waiting in the shadows to rip them off.
I was astounded to hear Radio National consult Ken Ring on their rural programme. Even worse was a spokesperson for Federated Farmers stating he was "generally not far out". Needless to say, Ken grasped the opportunity.
My estimation of Radio National, and the collective intelligence of farmers, have plummeted.
Hi Ian, while Radio NZ National is generally of a higher standard than most other radio stations, unfortunately even they pander to the ignorant masses at times. If they really want to feature Ken Ring and his predictions, it should be on a program that critically examines his claims, his method and its real world results. But I guess if they did that witches would be demanding equal air time too, and where would the nonsense stop?
I love it when Ken tweets — (these being some from April — May) — "earthquake risks possibly today and next few days" and "earthquake risk period for the South Island may be 26 — 30 April"
One "possibly", and one "may be". Uncertainty Ken — surely not? I could accept these comments in a horoscope — but from a person who claims he has predicted earthquakes it's not the standard I would expect.
Come on Ken, give us a real prediction prior to the event — time, date, location.
As we both know Dave, if it wasn't for Ring's monumental uncertainty in what he does, he wouldn't have a career in scamming. If he was compelled to remove guesses and wishy-washy terms from his soothsaying tweets — seriously — what would be left?
Since horoscopes and Ring's predictions are both based on silly astrology, we can expect nothing but non-committal predictions such as: there may be an earthquake, you may meet a tall, dark stranger, or possibly you will win Lotto this week.
The mystery for us is not why some turkey mired in superstitious nonsense can only offer silly guesses, it's why so many people follow his blatantly useless advice. There used to be talk that such things as TV was dumbing down society, and now Facebook and Twitter can no doubt be added to the list. Certainly something seems to be creating an increasing pool of idiots for people like Ring to rip-off.
I cannot understand Yahoo for allowing this man to put up articles on Climate Change denial and not allowing him to be challenged by comments. Yes there are a few idiots who abuse the comments option, but some readers may be influenced by his opinions and they need redressing by learned people, he does harm to the efforts to slow down man caused climate change, by saying everything is normal and natural. Before when I challenged him through comments, I realised there was little substance to the man's beliefs. His weather predictions are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I have no problem with him producing an almanac, for gardening notes and season reminders like many other almanac producers. Personally I would prefer a diary.
In my view Bob, Yahoo allows Ring to publish his silly articles because they know they are controversial, and controversy will increase traffic to their site, and ultimately revenue. Like many in the media, profit is their primary concern, not education, hence they aren't concerned that the issues raised in his articles can't be debated. And Ring, also driven primarily by greed, denies the public the freedom to comment on his claims because he fears self-inflicted damage to his dubious reputation.
Ring should have the confidence in his method that scientists have in theirs and their willingness to passionately debate them, sometimes fiercely, but always with the desire to discover the truth. But Ring is not interested in testing his method, all his percentage claims of accuracy have been plucked out of midair by Ring, and he is not interested in discussing his method with those that don't already believe. Ring's move to prevent comments on his Yahoo articles is a clear sign that he doesn't want the public to look too closely behind the curtain or up his sleeves.
As for Ring's gardening notes and season reminders in his almanac, I view them as being just as silly as his weather and earthquake predictions. His gardening advice is again based on astrology and also the bogus idea of biodynamics. Here is an example of his silly advice:
Nice to know you are still on Ken's case.
I love this gem in his latest article. "Besides, pre-1990 glass thermometers couldn't accurately read tenths." Didn't he have his temperature taken when he was a child? As I recall, our home thermometer read 98.4°F quite accurately and that was way back in the 50s and 60s. I'm sure Edward Wilson would be spinning in his grave if he knew that his meticulously recorded temperature readings (all to tenths of a degree), during Scott's expedition were a waste of time.
I know he won't, but Ken (and others) should take the time to view the recent documentary "Thin Ice". It looks at the science behind climate change and explains the role of CO2 quite well.
Hi Brian. Yes, the pre-1990s were such primitive times, I'm surprised we could even make glass thermometers that worked at all. On reading Ken's articles I often wonder whether his site is one of those spoof sites — like The Onion — where the goal is humour, and only the truly gullible take the articles seriously. I mean, what are the odds that someone who can read and write and walk upright could unknowingly make so many simple errors in their articles?
But the embarrassing fact is that while Ken is seen by many as a joke, his articles aren't meant to be. The real problem seems to be that Ken doesn't let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Inconvenient facts seem only to confuse both Ken and his clients, so they are dispensed with, and Ken weaves his own simple fantasy, comfortably devoid of complex science that might be revealed in documentaries like 'Thin Ice'.
Return to Article
|
|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
www.sillybeliefs.com
Last Updated May 2013 |
He has slowly come to realise that he doesn't have the knowledge, intellect, patience, temperament or communication skills to debate the topics that he raises. He is terrified, based on considerable past experience, that he will soon lose his temper and start throwing vile insults at those that dare question his claims. Of course he quickly comes to regret these outbursts, not for what he said since he is quite sincere, but for the potential clients that he might have lost due to them not understanding that challenging his views is paramount to being a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi'. Which is one of the many things he has called me for having the arrogance of not joining his fan club. Ring lives in a fantasy world where he believes that the views of all ex-clowns should be revered and trusted implicitly, and distrusts any format where claims must be experimentally confirmed and the results are open to debate. He naively believes that since his astrological method is based on ancient 'knowledge', then it has clearly stood the test of time and should be accepted. Just like the ancient 'knowledge' that the world was flat and at the centre of a very small and young universe, and that God spent his days stuffing souls into babies.