|
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:
Hi There. I had a run in with Ken Ring myself in our local Coromandel Chronical. I am writing a column on 'Green' issues there and wrote about climate change. Ken seems to be stuck with Augi Auer and cohorts in the climate change deniers corner. Anyhow, good on you. Your various articles, I am
sure will be good reading. May I quote your URL in my upcoming reply? It would save me doing the excellent research you have done. Thanks!
Hi Thomas. Certainly you can quote our URL and from our article on Ken Ring. We're not in this for fame or fortune, merely to show that Ken Ring and his silly claims have no credibility. The more people that get to see Ken as the scam artist he is the better. While the debate over climate change is complicated and controversial, with reputable scientists on both sides, it's obvious that Ken Ring should not be considered one of these experts. You obviously have an interest in and knowledge of the climate change debate, and like us will be annoyed that Joe Citizen tends to listen only to media personalities like Ken Ring and Augie Auers. The media needs to realize that there are people in society who want to hear about real science from real scientists. They need to stop swapping science stories for entertainment ones. Climate change, genetic engineering etc, is ultimately far more important than what Paris Hilton's dog is up to or what Tom Cruise's baby's name means in Hebrew.
Excellent, I will publish your URL in our town chronicle together withsome words about Ken and his
antics. His latest association with the 'Climate Science' crowd is not bad... they use him and in doing so show their utter disregard to science and the rigor of scientific process. I think that this actually helps to debunk these people for what they are. Amateurs with Machiavellian attitude and manners.... just like big brother George Bush....
Hi Just read your Ken Ring section. Many thanks for the fine work and research.
Well done. I am a farmer, and a confirmed sceptic of any long term weather forecasting. I have seen these guys come and go. However, a surprising number of my farming mates follow Ken Ring, in spite of his being proved wrong every time I compare forecast with reality. This year has seen very severe winter weather in South Canterbury. Most notable was the snowfall around 12th June, which has been very expensive for many farmers. But they could have prepared if given six months warning, by reducing stock numbers or buying in feed. How did Ken Ring go with this one?
Hi Rod. It's good to hear that there is at least one sceptical farmer out there. Listening to Ken Ring you'd think that every farmer was a devotee of his.
You mentioned the severe winter weather in South Canterbury around 12th June and asked how Ken Ring fared with this event? Well I did a little research, and like you I simply compared his forecasts with reality. The short answer is he failed once again, even though he has tried to reinterpret his predictions to make it appear as if he succeeded. And no doubt his devoted followers will believe him… [If you're interested in the slightly longer answer that quotes from his almanac, please contact us and we'll email it to you.]
Hi there, I was delighted to see your page on the complete and utter pin-head, Ken Ring. Were you aware that his main job is dressing up as a clown and a magician for primary schools? http://www.clown.co.nz/
I also contacted Random House who publish his Weather Almanac, and they responded "I have forwarded your email to Ken Ring's editor; he will be in touch with you shortly." Neither his editor, or Ken Ring, have been in touch.
Gidday, I'm writing an article for the student newspaper Critic, that examines the beliefs of climate change sceptics - including Ken Ring. You have done such a good job at your site that I intend to introduce Ring and then give the link to your site. Hope that is OK with you. Ring has confused CO2 levels rising (=increasing) with rising (=gaining altitude) and I had some odd emails with him on this point. I'd like to think no one can really be that dumb and it is all a joke but sadly I see he really believes it. I hadn't come across your site before I began searching for stuff about Ring. I like the style... I also enjoy railing against ignorance.
John, on your page discussing this moon fellow, you write:
"[Ring:] The sun warms the ground and the warm ground warms the air next to it. The warm air gets lighter. Cold air is always trying to fall because it s heavier. So the cold air falling pushes up the warm air and this movement causes wind. Most wind flows parallel to the Earth's surface, not vertically as Mr Ring claims. Warm air expands, becomes lighter and rises. The cooler air rushes in from the sides to occupy the empty space vacated by the rising warm air and this flow is wind. Mr Ring got the first bit correct, but then he contradicts himself by claiming that falling cold air pushes the warm air up."
In a sense he's right. As I told you in a previous email I frequently fly planes, gliders to be more exact, and we gliderpilots want mostly one thing... thermals (rising columns of air...up and away) Anyway, back to that warm air rises issue. You write "The cooler air rushes in from the sides to occupy the empty space". ...and the cooler air rushes in to replace the vacuum... nope.
Yes Devy, oops indeed. Definitely shouldn't have said 'empty space' implying a vacuum. I should have said 'the denser cooler air rushes in from the side to occupy the less dense space created by the rising warm air and this flow is wind'.
My gripe was Ring's impression that 'falling air pushes up' — 'So the cold air falling pushes up the warm air and this movement causes wind'. I don't believe it is cold air falling that pushes up the warm air. The warm air rises because of buoyancy. The pressure pushing down on the warm air "bubble" is less than the pressure pushing up, so the "bubble" of warm air is pushed up and rises the same way a balloon does. This reduces air density at the 'bottom', where the "bubble" was, so cooler more dense air flows in from the side to equalise the air density again. It is this convection current that is felt as wind. In the same way that a balloon isn't pushed up by falling cold air, neither is warm air, but when warm air is pushed up (by buoyancy) it will cause cooler air to fall and thus set up convection currents.
John, "the denser cooler air rushes in from the side to occupy the less dense space created by the rising warm air and this flow is wind"
Fyi... One of Mr Ring's claims is that there is less cloud on nights with a full moon. He mentions that this is an easily observable fact. To test this theory, I have studiously recorded the amount of cloud present at or close to midnight every night since August 2002. As one would expect,
there is no correlation with phases of the moon at all. The simple truth of the matter is that it is much easier to observe the amount of cloud present on nights when the moon is present, particularly more than 1Q full. Thus a dark night is easily confused with a cloudy night.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no proof is possible.
Regarding that statement, I'm not sure where you stand on the Ken Ring topic, since it appears to belittle those on both sides of the debate, painting both as unreasonable views. While there are no doubt some who take these irrational stances, it's not usually this black and white. Many people believe in false things based on what they mistakenly believe is proof, and many who disbelieve would happily change their minds if convincing proof was provided. Your statement paints an unfair picture of many of those involved in the debate.
Hi John. Interesting reading, looking forward to your critique of the NZ MetService! As a resident in Timaru I note that MetService failed to predict the 2006 snow storm also.
If the truth be known Russell, I don't have a lot of confidence in the NZ MetService either. However I do respect the methods that modern meteorology uses, it's just that they don't have the accuracy that the brief nightly TV weather forecasts imply. Chaos theory suggests that long range weather forecasting is nigh on impossible and the nightly TV forecasts are too simplistic to be much more than entertainment. How can forecasters say it will be raining in Southland and fine in Otago? How does the weather "know" where the boundary between Southland and Otago is? Why do the likes of fishermen, sailors etc pay for detailed weather forecasts if the nightly TV forecasts are just as accurate, and free? Add to this NZ's narrow shape and location makes it extremely difficult to make accurate predictions. However the likes of NZ MetService do the best they can and technology is increasing their accuracy. People need to look at weather predictions as educated guesses and act accordingly, rather than believing they are gospel. To this end I think the likes of the TV networks are placing far too much emphasis on their weather forecast segments, elevating them to near certainty rather than educated guess. TV1 starts their nightly news with the weather forecast, breaks the middle of the news hour with another weather update, and then finishes with an extended, showy weather forecast. While the time spent on the weather segment is increasing the time spent on any particular region is still mere seconds. I think people need to get over their fascination with weather guessing. What will be, will be. Anyone that needs accurate weather forecasting would be better advised to look out the window, buy a barometer, and obtain detained forecasts for their local area from the likes of NZ MetService.
Hi John, sorry for my late reply as it has been a busy week. Thanks for your comment re Ken Ring and the NZ Met Service. However, I couldn't help but smile at your "Freudian slip" which I have taken the liberty of highlighting for you below!! ;)
"People need to look at weather predictions as educated guesses and act accordingly, rather than believing they are gospel."
A mistake revealing an unconscious belief??
Hi Russ. A "Freudian slip"? You had me worried for a minute, but no, I don’t have any confidence in Freud’s methods either. I used the word ‘gospel’ not in the religious sense but meaning, according to my dictionary: 'Something, such as an idea or a principle, accepted as unquestionably true: The teacher said it, and that made it gospel.'
But you’re right, being interested in religion I do often sprinkle my speech with religious terms and this does throw a few people, some seriously believing I am a closet believer.
Hi John. I don't know if I believe in any system to be honest, but I do not think that it is completely fair to say Ken is a fraud, as a lot of his predictions do come true. It is easy to point out after the fact that Ken got it wrong and he was a few days out, we got more than he was predicting etc but remember this is written 6 months to a year earlier. Anyone who takes this as what's going to happen and not as a guideline should have their heads read.
After saying this do not get the idea that I believe Ken's method is, to Quote "the gospel" in weather prediction but I believe as a general tool for an outlook on the weather it can be used as a good base for climate conditions coming up. As for predicting floods, heavy snow etc, I think not. I also do not think that it's a service that should be charged for. $150 for a years online weather is not for me. Shouldn't the weather predictions be free for all? What if it was all user pays? Half the country would know if a cyclone is coming and be safe, the other half? Oh well they never payed!! Come on Ken, shouldn't this be a side line, not a business?
As a green-keeper, naturally the weather plays a huge part to my course, my weeks work plan and also my year plan. I will be using a combination of Ken's outlook for a wet August 2009 to base my work plan, then using the Met Service to tell me how much rain will come at any given day (I hope they get it right LOL). This way I hope to get a better picture of what could be in store for me. Freak heavy downpours, weather bombs etc, I won't hold anyone accountable for these as they just can not be predicted effectively.
Then after all the speculation on what's going to happen from both their forecasts, I will use the one and only proven method and stick my head outside the window in the morning, look up and see for myself how it looks.
Hi Dave, thanks for your comments. Regarding Ring's predictions, you say that, "it is easy to point out after the fact that Ken got it wrong", but unfortunately this is the only way that we can measure the accuracy of predictions, no matter who makes them. Yes, some of his predictions will have been correct, but the question is, are his successes greater than what we would expect by chance alone. His empty claims aside, Ring makes no attempt to prove that they are. His predictions are on public record, and combined with our weather records they could easily prove his method. If proven he could oust the Met Service and be NZ's sole weather predictor, making a fortune compared to his books, saving the country a fortune in weather related damage, and, best of all, saving lives. But he chooses not to.
You believe that some of Ring's predictions are not as accurate as they could be simply because they are written 6 months to a year earlier. Many people use this argument in Ring's defence, but Ring himself would disagree with you. Ring insists that his predictions could have been written "twenty or 200" years before the event and that writing them closer to the time wouldn't alter them. Indeed, this is the very basis of his claim: accurate, reliable long-range forecasts. Ring's argument is that his system is based on predicable cycles, hence it doesn't matter when you do the calculations. Also his long-range forecasts would be worthless if they weren't written long-range.
We don't bash the Met Service because they don't claim the accuracy or infallibility of Ring, nor do they use the likes of astrology to predict the weather. The weather is extremely difficult to predict in NZ, mainly due to our geography. Accurate long-range forecasts are nigh on impossible. Many people confuse climate with weather. Saying that Central Otago is likely to receive snow in July and sunny days in January is describing the climate of Central Otago. Saying that it will snow on July 10th in Queenstown and rain on January 20th is describing the weather, what will actually happen on a particular day. The Met Service can describe the climate but they can't describe the weather until very close to the time, and often not even then. The weather forecasts we see on the nightly news are usually too simplistic to be of much use, hence the reason the likes of fishermen pay for detailed forecasts from the Met Service. Technology is improving their forecasts, but I think people are fooling themselves if they believe the Met Service will get it right all the time. They are only educated guesses. Personally I believe the media, especially the nightly TV weather, bombard us with a distorted view of what the Met Service really think will happen. Fancy graphics and simplistic forecasts make the weather more like the Lotto draw than a detailed report from a meteorologist. Breaking a complex forecast down to punchy soundbites appears to deliver a certainty that the Met Service are no doubt not entirely happy with.
If Ring does offer valuable advice, it would be that in consulting and using Met Service weather records from past years he is describing what the climate — not the weather — is likely to be for a given month in a given place. However his public claim that he can reliably predict weather for very specific events: weddings, harvesting crops, concerts etc., is something that even you acknowledge can not be predicted. It is this claim that we challenge Ring over, and his claim that we should be using astrology to obtain this knowledge. Understanding climate is certainly valuable, for example farmers need to know when they are likely to get regular rain for crops, or warm weather for shearing sheep. In centuries past people lived intimately with nature and were very familiar with the seasons, but today this knowledge has been lost for many of us, and thus many turn to the likes of Ring to be told what sort of weather we can expect in June. This he can't do, but he can give you an idea of what the climate will be, but then so can the Met Service or anyone that studies the climate. I think people confuse Ring's ability to describe the climate with his claim to be able to describe the weather.
Unlike you Dave, weather has no real impact on my life, apart from psychological, but I agree that the most reliable method is simply to look out the window. As a farmer, my father swears by barometers, since they measure local conditions, and combined with Met Service data and knowledge of your local climate, this is the best we can hope to achieve at the moment.
Gidday John — I just ran into your good site when searching for other stuff. I get the impression Ken Ring's star has faded somewhat since 2005/06 when he peaked in the media, owing to abysmal performance and efforts such as yours. I'm in Gisborne and did my bit in the local scene in early 2006, in the much-publicised lead-up to his prediction of a cyclone to rival Bola in mid-March of that year. My 'Letter to the Editor' published in the Gisborne Herald of 4 March 2006 tells much of the story.
Ken Ring is a colourful character. He reminds me of the story, possibly apocryphal, of the enterprising chap some 40 years ago who offered a course of pills to couples who wanted to choose the sex of their baby-to-be — blue pills for a boy, pink for girls. The pills were rather expensive, but they came with a money-back guarantee. And many customers were satisfied! But you, Sir, wouldn't have been sucked in by that scam to the extent of promoting it in order to serve the public's interests and needs, would you?
Why then all this "reportage" in your paper giving credence to a Ring-predicted cyclone in March then?
Let's try some basic checking of his predictions against results, bearing in mind that many may be "correct" by random chance. Ring doesn't just predict cyclones, he claims to predict the complete weather systems all round NZ, every day, and their results in the form of wind, sunshine and specifically rain in dozens of towns, Gisborne included.
He predicted westerly wind systems and no rain for Gisborne for each day from late January to 13 February. Then, to quote him from late January as reported in your article of February 2, "It would rain almost every day from February 14 to 27 before clearing," he said. "If it pans out roughly like that then we are on track for that later event in March." And that March event of course is of course a cyclone to rival Bola.
And the reality? In contrast to what we like to think of as typical Gisborne summer weather, late January to February 13 was notable for the frequent rain from persistent easterly winds with uncomfortably high humidity and much low cloud. But the resulting lush greenness of the hills is now drying off rapidly, as from February 14-27 we've had consistent westerly wind systems, much sunshine and zero rain recorded officially (though I noticed a few spots on at least two occasions).
So the weather systems are not on the track predicted by Ring. His predictions over this period are far worse than random.
You will be seeking his acknowledgement of this and a retraction of the cyclone prediction? Of course not. Half the parents with babies of the wrong sex wouldn't claim their refund either, they'd be too embarrassed. And March is the most likely month for an ex-tropical cyclone to visit, this year as much or more likely than ever.
And the rest of the story was of course that the weather around the time of the predicted cyclone was very ordinary mainly fine, and Ken Ring maintained a low profile for a while. From his web-site it looks like he's now gone international with a focus on Australia, no doubt because there are at least 5 times as many gullible people in Australia as NZ and beyond that the sky's the limit.
Although you indicate the underlying method to his predictions is astrological, I think you may not have picked up on what is really the technical basis of his MO — he recycles the Met Service's actual synoptic weather maps from either 19 years before, or 18 years 10 days before, and so "predicts" the same weather to recur as happened last time. 19 years is the metonic cycle, when the sun and moon repeat in exactly the same positions in relation to earth's orientation, there being near exactly 235 lunar months in 19 solar years; and the pseudo-science principle is that the atmosphere is driven by the "tidal" effects primarily of the moon and secondarily of the sun's gravitation. I gather he used to publish the two weather maps [for both those earlier cycles] as a prediction for each day, but this proved "confusing" to too many people, and he took to making the choice of one, I think settling on the 18yrs 10 day difference as in 2006, as it's a bit more subtle than simply predicting Cyclone Bola to recur on the 19th anniversary dates. The amazing thing is that in some cases he forgot to erase the names of the earlier ex-tropical cyclones that Met Service used to put on their maps when publishing them as predictions for the next year!
He popped up on the Stuff web-site last month the day after the interesting magnitude 7.8 earthquake in Fiordland, suggesting we should expect further big earthquakes around the globe in the following week, because it was no coincidence that the Fiordland earthquake occurred a mere 30 minutes before the "change of phase" of the moon at last quarter, because most big earthquakes occur "around new moons and full moons, and a week either side". I won't be upset if the less astronomically inclined take as much as two seconds to realise the full depth of entertainment to be had from this, albeit mixed with concerns for the future of society that such transparent charlatans get traction.
Hi Chris, thanks for your interesting comments, and it's always good to hear that others are exposing Ring's failures. You're right, I haven't noticed any media exposure of Ken Ring for some time now, although I still keep tripping over his Weather Almanac in some bookstores, annoyingly, more often than not, in their Popular Science section. I usually move it to the Astrology section. :-) And yes, I had heard the story of that scam to pick the sex of babies. I believe I heard Prof. Robert Winston mention it on one of his TV documentaries.
You're right of course that Ring does base a lot of his work on old Met Service weather charts, 'stealing' their work and putting his name to it. He uses both elements of pure nonsense and true science to weave his scam. Astrology and ancient divination techniques combined with utilising the metonic cycle and old Met Service maps. The trouble is that Ring himself doesn't know where the science ends and the nonsense begins, and neither do his clients.
I missed Ring's prediction of further big earthquakes around the globe in the week following our big one, but since over two weeks have now passed and none recorded bar the expected aftershocks, once again Ring is proved wrong. I had to giggle when you mentioned that Ring claimed that most big earthquakes occur "around new moons and full moons, and a week either side". For readers that haven't thought much about the phases of the moon, they repeat each month, with one main phase each week — new moon, 1st quarter, full moon, 3rd quarter and back to new moon. So essentially what Ring is saying is that if an earthquake occurs, it will likely occur in either the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th week of any month. Or to put it another way, he has selected every single week of the year as a potential week for an earthquake. No matter when an earthquake occurs, he can claim to have predicted it. He can't lose. It's like predicting a coin toss will be either heads or tails. It's hardly a prediction. But it does demonstrate how Ring manipulates the public's ignorance of science to make what appears on the surface to be real predictions.
Actually... I was looking for a "fine weather" weekend for the month of August 2008 for our wedding. I contacted Ken Ring (as a skeptic) ONE YEAR IN ADVANCE and he sent a report for Waikato, August, 2008. To my great surprise, it was pinpoint accurate. Every weekend was wet, except for the one that was predicted to be more settled which is the one that I went ahead and booked for our wedding day. We were married August 9th 2009. Friday was predicted as scattered showers. Saturday was a light drizzle in the morning, clearing in the afternoon but overcast, and Sunday was predicted for blue skies - and that's exactly how it happened. So could you explain that please? I don't think it's all as silly as you all think. I still have the prediction, on dated email.
Arrianna, you ask if we can explain how Ring's prediction matched the weather on the day? Yes of course we can. It's called luck. Just as when someone calls 'heads' on a coin toss and 'heads' is the actual result. They aren't all-knowing, they don't have special powers, it's just dumb luck. However, to continue the coin analogy, if someone could consistently predict the toss, then you could conclude that they did have a reliable method of prediction. Likewise if Ring could consistently predict the correct weather for every day of the year, not just fluke it for your wedding, then the real world might take him seriously. Every government on the planet could subscribe to Ring's Weather Ezine and close down their meteorological offices, convert all the weather satellites to communication satellites and channel the enormous savings to reducing poverty and disease. I assume, in addition to your comment to us, you're also lobbying our government to scrap the tax funded Met Service, NIWA etc. and to adopt the much cheaper and more reliable Ken Ring method?
Unfortunately Ring can't reliably predict the weather, anymore than we can predict coin tosses, although on pure chance alone we'll all get it right now and again. And we must remember that Ring isn't working on chance alone, he is copying what the Met Office has said might happen at these times and places in years gone by. It's like you predicting that we're more likely to get hot weather in February than in July. Through experience and an educated guess, the odds are that you will be correct, but you won't be able to guarantee which days in February will be hot and which wet. Neither can Ring. Your comment suggests that Ring was confident that your wedding day would be dry, but if this is the case, then why does he always stick the following at the bottom of his predictions:
Ring makes thousands of predictions every year — thousands of coin tosses — and you're saying that because he got one right, then his method can't be all that silly. As we've said, chance alone says he must get some of his predictions right, many more than just one in fact, and yet you only provide one example. You have written to us defending Ring because he got it right for your important day. But why haven't you given us other examples from your life? Due to your apparent wedding conversion to the Ring camp, surely for the last year you have been consistently referring to his predictions, and should be able to give me week after week of correct outcomes? Or is this the only example you have? And why aren't other people writing to us in droves to say that he got their prediction right as well? Do they come to realise that each successful forecast is swamped by hundreds of incorrect ones?
I'm also a little dubious that you really were a skeptic when you contacted Ring. Skeptics as a rule do not give money to those they are skeptical of. While you could of course have used the occasion of your wedding to test Ring's forecast, an informed skeptic would know that one apparent success in isolation in no way validates his method.
You said you used Ring's forecast to pick your wedding day, again not something a skeptic would do, and yet you say that it was to your 'great surprise' that he was accurate. Why would you employ the services of someone you expected would most likely fail? Did you also pick a photographer for your wedding, who to your 'great surprise', actually produced some lovely photographs?
Like me, you'll no doubt say you haven't got the time or inclination to cross reference all of Ring's predictions with the weather that actually occurs well down the track. But Ring has got — or at least should have — all this data that 'proves' his forecasts are reliable. Why is he not interested in proving all his many critics wrong and earning some respectability in the weather forecasting arena? Why does he rely on the likes of you to challenge us?
Hi, I use Mr Rings long range weather predictions from time to time and find them not always accurate to the day but generally a good FORECAST as the name implies.
I have also found that his long range predictions are as accurate as the forecasts of SCIENTIFIC meteorologists just a few days out.
If scientific study is the only way (in your eyes) then let the world see your predictions and see if they are more accurate. I noticed that you and yours didn't forecast any of the disasters you mention so if you don't have a better method then don't knock what is available.
Hi Martin. Supporting Ring's predictions you nevertheless say that you 'find them not always accurate to the day' and 'just a few days out'. Having a weather prediction that is a few days out is like having a Lotto ticket that's just one digit off the winning ticket. While it might be close it's absolutely worthless. Farmers that want to shear sheep or cut hay, fishermen that want to go off shore for the weekend, climbers that want to go into the mountains for a day climb and a couple that is planing an outdoor wedding want to know what the weather will be on a specific date, and they're not impressed if the good weather eventually turns up a few days later. Anyone that doesn't care what the weather is doing to within a few days is not involved in a weather dependent event.
Challenging me to do better is just silly. I've never claimed to be a meteorologist. As an analogy, a patient can recognise an incompetent surgeon because he keeps botching his operations, but it's just childish to say that we should let him continue his work because that patient can't perform operations any better.
Furthermore, as I've mentioned in another comment, as regards long range weather forecasting in general, I personally believe if it's not impossible, it's at least extremely difficult and way beyond our present abilities. Chaos theory describes weather systems as chaotic and inherently unpredictable. Even with massive supercomputers we still couldn't accurately predict the weather long term. Whenever Ring does match 'the forecasts of SCIENTIFIC meteorologists', it will either be because he is simply 'stealing' their previously published weather data, and so the success is theirs not his, or he has made a lucky guess.
The fact is that scientific short term weather forecasts, thanks to the likes of weather satellites, are improving and are the method of choice of every modern country on the planet. While science can't yet predict extreme weather or earthquakes, tsunamis etc., I am not about to throw up my hands and put my faith in someone who believes in astrology and palmistry for cats.
Hello John, I think maybe we aren't on the same wavelength. I would not recommend Mr Rings day to day or even week to week weather predictions (I don't even trust meteorologists to do that) but place some credence in his (whether it is his data or someone else's doesn't bother me to much) long range forecasts. When we are talking 6 months to a year out, a day here or there doesn't matter one bit but can give a reasonable weather pattern to start from if you are planning a week long operation. Something meteorologists cannot do, unless they, just a smidgeon, think along the same lines as Mr Ring.
I have some examples of forecasts which were useful ahead of time and in hindsight I maybe should have heeded, but things are always easier looking back aren't they.
As an aside I found very interesting the discussion on the hot air, cold air, wind thing and how people can have different views on the same outcome on such a simple subject.
Yes Martin, I see where you're coming from, and in a sense I agree. However when do we stop talking about weather and start talking about climate? Weather is what happens on a specific day at a specific place, whereas climate is the conditions that characteristically prevail in a particular region. I mean, by consulting Ring's Almanac one could determine that the best time to go skiing in Central Otago is around August, or whatever. However I don't see this as long range weather forecasting, I see this as understanding the NZ climate. No doubt Ken Ring does have a better understanding of what weather is most likely at specific times and places, but this is just making educated guesses based on past climate patterns, usually provided by the likes of the Met Office. However most people that support Ring believe he is capable of predicting the weather long range, to a specific day, for a specific event. I agree that Ring's Almanac might tell you during which months heavy rains or snow or drought is most likely and where, but this is not weather forecasting. This is merely describing the climate for a specific region and the Met Office can do it just as well as Ring, but they tend not to as they are more concerned with short term forecasts of weather. I know my father, as a farmer and man of the land, didn't need the likes of Ring's advice to plan his yearly activities. Perhaps other Kiwis are losing touch with nature and it's cycles and thus need the likes of Ring to tell them what the weather might be like in the middle of winter. But that word 'might' is the important one. Ring is just guessing.
And yes you're right about the hot air, cold air, wind discussion, I guess we all think that we understand how a lot of apparently simple things work, and yet maybe we don't. It's not until we're challenged that we have to do a bit more research and maybe discover that the simplistic explanations we got at school are not the full story.
Thanks for the excellent essay on Ken Ring. I've always thought it was bunkum from observing the results of his prediction in NZ Herald & on TVNZ. I have never yet seen either of those media sources review one of Mr Ring's predictions.
Ken Ring will continue his business and people will listen to his mad predictions. The majority of people in this world will believe anything i.e. they don't think for themselves.
Thanks for your comments Trevor. The media unfortunately will go with any crap that pulls in the public. Their greed overrides their integrity. And you’re right, most people don’t bother thinking for themselves, and people like Ring don’t want that to change.
Hi John, just a note on Ken Ring, last April ken Ring predicted, to the day, the spell of good weather we got in Ireland this June. He was then invited onto a program on one of our national Radio stations to predict what everyone believed was to be a great summer for the British Isles. He predicted that July and August would be a washout and that the only prolonged period of good weather in Ireland would be between the 7th and the 23rd of September. June was the wettest
month in Ireland since 1942 and August was almost as bad. Today is the 7th and the forecast from our national weather station is for a prolonged period of good weather starting tomorrow the 8th of Sept... not bad for a silly scam eh... ??????
Hi Johnny, there is no denying that Ken Ring has had apparent successes. After all, the more predictions he makes, the more chances that he will get some right. But like a winning lottery ticket, everyone concentrates on that one ticket and immediately forgets about the millions that were losers. People often support Ring after hearing one of his predictions that appeared to come true, but they usually have no knowledge of the many other predictions he made that were failures. He also has the advantage of making authoritative sounding predictions months before the event, most of which are forgotten by the time the date arrives. All people remember is Ring making predictions, and often just assume he was probably right, since he then shows up again the following year. Surely they wouldn't have people on TV that are talking crap? But this is on the same shows that also feature psychics and fortune-tellers. These shows deal in nonsense, and their viewers love it.
What I wonder about is why a few members of the general public can immediately grasp how accurate Ring's forecasts are, and yet the world's experts can't see how good he is. Is it an evil conspiracy by people making money from issuing bogus weather reports and launching useless weather satellites?
Ring is like someone who guesses the winning lottery numbers and suddenly believes they have a method for winning. The test is whether they can predict the correct numbers every week. Likewise Ring needs to demonstrate that he can reliably predict the weather. This he has failed to do. Like all nutters with weird theories of how the world works, he concentrates on the general public who don't understand the science and won't do the necessary research to test his claims. Apart from denigrating them, he steers well clear of experts such as meteorologists and scientists who challenge his claims and dispute the validity of his method. Anybody who truly had a method that would overturn conventional thinking would be gathering data and debating with scientists. This is what Nobel Prizes are awarded for. Instead Ring chooses to target the person on the street who often, like Ring himself, doesn't know the difference between gravitational and tidal forces or astrology and astronomy.
The world spends billions each year trying to predict the weather and improving its techniques, one reason being to save lives, and yet Ring doesn't seem interested in getting his superior method used and saving lives. Perhaps one could answer that Ring doesn't care about others, he's only interested in making money, not saving lives, and that's why he peddles his method door to door so to speak. Yet proving his method and licensing it to just one country would make him untold riches overnight. So why doesn't he do it? Whether to make money, save lives, make his predictions widely available or just to stop people calling him a loony, getting his method accepted by science would greatly increase any and all of these desires. Ring claims he can support his method, but he refuses to produce this support and continues to work from home.
Have you wondered why no one in Ireland, or Britain or even Europe, has taken to predicting the weather by looking at the moon and consulting astrology? Ring hasn't patented his method. Why do you guys have to rely on an ex-maths teacher and ex-clown working out of his house in NZ to know what the weather will do? If his method is obviously so successful, why aren't people worldwide all racing to become the weather guru for their own region? There are fortunes to be made here if you get in early, so why can't anyone be bothered?
Ring is like that retired carpenter who says he can prove that the moon landing was a hoax, and his supporters claim that scientists either can't grasp his arguments or blindly won't look at them. Anyone that targets the man on the street and avoids scientific debate is demonstrating that his scam can only fool those that aren't experts.
Hi John, Thanks for the response, I did not expect a reply. A couple of points though...
I must take exception to your condescending manner, how dare you refer to the likes of me as some kind of gormless idiot who is easily led because I do not have a scientific background. So no one else on the planet is entitled to an opinion except you and your cohorts, you want us to ignore the layman and blindly follow the academics. I am presuming of course that you have some scientific background. We the public are well able to decide for ourselves what is scientific fact and what is informed opinion.
...you accuse Mr Ring of not adhering to scientific principles and debating his methods with learned men, yet when you discuss him you use words like "nutters", "loony", "clown", hardly the stuff of a man of letters...???
Have you ever heard the expression... "methinks he doth protest too much" ..!!! Come on get a grip, he is predicting weather for God's sake, not inciting racial hatred...!
Johnny, I apologise if you took my reply as condescending, however, if my acceptance of modern science over primitive superstition makes me sound superior, then so be it.
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinions can be just that, opinions. Often they are simply beliefs that aren't supported by facts or proof. One person could have the opinion that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and another that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. The latter opinion is well supported by evidence but the first is not. Having an opinion about something is not the same as having knowledge about something. Scientists don't work towards theories strongly backed by opinions. They seek facts and evidence. The general public may be happy to have the opinion that we can talk to the dead, that there really is a god, that homeopathy works and that Ring can forecast the weather, but they should not fool themselves that their beliefs or opinions necessarily carry any ring of truth, the way science does.
And yes, in many cases I would suggest that we ignore that layperson and look to the academics, but not 'blindly follow' as you suggest. In subjective matters such as what is good art or a good movie or are blondes more attractive than brunettes, then the layperson's view is as valid as the academics, but not in objective science. Scientists have the education, training, experience and research data whereas the layperson has by definition none of these things. The layperson can only claim to have ignorance. When you have a problem or query about the law, medicine, computers or even your car's transmission, do you ask a layperson, or do you consult an expert? I hate to think what would happen to society if instead of consulting a panel of experts we instead started consulting laypeople. Civilisation and progress happened because people became specialised and laypeople let the experts build bridges, perform surgical operations and fly aircraft. Of course laypeople can challenge the experts, but this requires knowledge, robust debate, evidence and research. Ring wants the public to accept that he is right and the multitude of experts are wrong, but he refuses to engage the experts. On faith alone, he wants us to take his word over the mountain of evidence put forward by the opposition.
Ring could change all that. If his claims have some merit then he needs to demonstrate it, to produce proof. Ring simply arguing that a lot of laypeople buy his books and people like you support him are meaningless. By this argument astrology and Islam must also be true based on the number of horoscopes sold and the fact that Islam will soon have the most followers on the planet.
If you are able to decide what is scientific fact and what is informed opinion, then you should have already realised that Ring's claims are neither. Ring is no different than psychics, mediums and energy healers who refuse to be tested, people who insist aliens built the pyramids or that the holocaust never happened. They appeal to the public, seeking out the gullible and the ignorant, to whom they put their claims, while hiding from the experts who would see right through them.
And actually I called Ring an 'ex-clown', since clown is one of the jobs that Ring used to earn a living from. As for 'loony' and 'nutters', Ring himself acknowledges that many of his critics see him as a lunatic, and frankly any educated person today that still believes in astrology, and that it can predict the weather, is living in the wrong century. Admittedly Ring makes little public mention of astrology these days, preferring to sprinkle his talks with scientific phrases, but this is a common ploy of most New Age practitioners. Not only that, Ring also believes in equally silly things such as numerology, graphology, psychics, phrenology and palmistry. He has even written a book explaining how to apply palm reading to the paws of cats. This man is seriously deluded.
You suggest that we should leave Ring alone since he's not doing anything really criminal like inciting racial hatred. Yet you felt that what he's doing is important enough to write and support him. Equally we think that what he's doing is important enough to expose him as a scam artist. You seem to imply that even if he is a scammer, it's a minor offence. That's like saying we shouldn't worry about shop lifting when people are robbing banks. Sorry, but theft is theft, and Ring may not be raking in as much as Nigerian bank scammers, but he's still taking money from people through false pretences, and that's not something we support.
The ball is in Ring's court. He could prove to science and to us that he is genuine, but he chooses not to. Like greedy psychics fearful of exposure, he prefers to let his supporters fight his battles, while he stays hidden.
Hi all. I have read all comments and perhaps need to clarify some matters.
It is very easy to misquote someone and then construct an argument around the misquote such that the original person is denigrated in such a way that those with closed minds rub their hands with glee and satisfaction. I am criticized for running a business that offers opinions and opinions only. I never claim hundred percent accuracy and never would. My work is on a par with an economic forecast or a doctor's prognosis, a teachers report, or a political opinion. People buy my opinions, there is nothing wrong with that, nothing unethical about it, and no hint of scam behaviour. To suggest so is bordering on slander. If one person finds a forecast works and another that a forecast doesn't, it doesn't mean that nothing is proven or disproven any more than if one person finds a toothpaste works and another finds it is less effective than his previous favourite teeth washing method. Members of this forum seem to be intent on finding fault. I suggest they have not read my free 230-page book that I offer on my website so that people can become acquainted with the old science that was the forerunner of modern meteorology. All meteorologists were once astrologers, as were all doctors, scientists and all mathematicians. Astrology was not the coffee table game that is today and that is because it has been denigrated for religious and political reasons. By being a system of prediction using cycles it met resistance from the early Christian church which dictated that only God knew what was going to happen. If it was not for astrology we would not have the mathematics or the science that we enjoy now. We would not have navigation and we would not have computers. The early pioneers of our mathematical system were of ancient Indian, Arab, and Persian cultures, not Christian but Muslim (horrors, horrors) and no doubt the Chinese, who were sailing the world and making accurate maps 4000 years ago. Google the Harris map to see this part of the world.
It has not been worth my while to enter any discussion here because most contributors seem to have closed minds on my subject. My peers are not meteorologists, nor scientists, nor anybody university trained, although I have been privileged to have had a university education. None of the aforementioned know anything about weather except what they have read by others who also do not know anything about weather. The only weather experts that I find level ground with and capable of reasoned discussion with are farmers, fishermen, yachties and those others who live actually in it day by day. Those people do not have university chairs but that does not mean the ideas they have are invalid. At the moment I seem to be the subject of much media discussion in Ireland, because I am the only forecaster who correctly predicted when for 2009 the fine summer weather would come. This is easily googled. I put it down to the fact that the Irish, whilst being a gentle and tolerant people, are also close to the land and have been for a very long time.
I would also like to correct those who have made comments here about what my methods are. I do not use 18 and 19 years except for maps and yes I do recycle previous maps that were in the public domain and put out by the old Lands and Survey Department, a branch of the government at the time and that I as a taxpayer have every right to utilize. I obtained them on loan from the University of Auckland Geography department and see nothing wrong in that. Perhaps the shin kickers in this forum may care to point out what they think I am doing that is so objectionable. Taking money for a service? Doesn't everybody do that? It is not as if I make stuff up - each forecast takes a great deal of time to work out and cross check. I use past meteorological data which I have purchased from the Metservice, at great expense. For instance, past data for just 3 towns cost $1000 five years ago. In my almanac I cover 64 such locations, so my outlay has been considerable. Why should I not charge for the work I'm doing? Do meteorologists not also get paid? This seems to be a huge double standard in this forum, one rule for me and one for everybody else. I do not see the Metservice being criticized or for having silly belief's and yet some of their utterances would be laughed out of court by a sensible five-year-old.
One is the notion that weather comes from the air. This is nonsense. There is weather on other planets but no air. The weather comes first and blows the air around. It is virtually the tidal force that is above water. Next time you are at the beach you may notice that the air is joined to the water. There is no gap between the bottom of the air and the surface of the sea. Air and sea are one system. They interface and interconnect over 75% of the Earth's surface. They are therefore acted upon by the same tidal forces of moon and sun and other extraterrestrial systems both within and beyond our solar system. The surface currents of the sea create the worlds winds. The idea that the weather comes from the air suits global warmers because it infers that a gas put into the air can change the weather. If we are talking about silly beliefs then that one takes the cake. Watch steam coming out of the chimney. The weather, whatever is around, deals to it immediately, not the other way around. A gust of wind will blow it away or it will hang there until the next gust of wind comes. But it won't change the weather, any more than a bunch of ink spilt into the sea would in some way change the tide.
My ideas can be very simply put and that is that tidal cycles control weather as much as they control the movements of the ocean. It is a matter of finding out what a local cycle is because each will vary due to topological factors, and latitude/longitude. Once I have found an accurate tide cycle I can apply it to the weather for that region. To suggest that this is not sound science is patently silly. Perhaps it has not occurred to people here and therefore the notion is easily dismissed. But it did occur to people in the ancient past and the stone circles of the world which are all aligned to the moon demonstrate that they were the laptops of the day, erected to provide a calculating device for weather and climate for each village that had one. The stone circles in New Zealand are mostly on private land, but some evidence of them still exists in Council records, for example on Stockade Hill in Howick; they are or were all aligned in the same way as European counterparts such as Stonehenge. Yet you will not be told about these in schools or universities because the true prehistory of New Zealand seems to have been as suppressed as the science of weather. The reason as always is money, prestige and politics. For instance Stonehenge was decoded as a moon orbit calculator over 30 years ago, by one Professor Gerald Hawkins. You cannot buy his books anywhere in Britain for the simple reason that he was an American. It would be nice if scientific discussions could be held that discussed ideas only, and not who the person was, where he came from, what his other jobs might have been in the past, and what he was supposed to have said as reported by others. It would be nice if a forum such as this had that kind of grace. However having read all the posts, I doubt it.
A further misconception - I have never shied away from sharing my work. In every talk I give, I outline my method such that those attending can immediately go home and make use of it for their own farming operation. I welcome other people trying out what I do because it creates a community that can benefit from networking. It should not be that we can only get weather forecasts from watching TV where we have to view advertisers products or use 0900 numbers. The weather belongs to everybody. The moon belongs to everybody. However science these days is a profit driven industry and those who should be sharing the most, because the taxpayers pay their wages, seem to be denying the rest access to truth and knowledge. This seems rife in New Zealand. The preciousness of the state services here is quite rare. Australia is far healthier and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) is a joy to work with.
So the ball is not in my court. If anybody wants a reasoned debate then I am ready for it. So far, my almanac for this year has scored very highly. On 2 February in the ODT I said the Shotover River would ice up in the last days of July. It did. I can provide links or it can be googled. In the almanac I said this winter would be breaking records for cold temperatures. Compare this to what NIWA said in April, that the winter would be warmer than average. By May they were changing their minds. In my almanac for 10 May I mentioned the potential for tornadoes in the BoP. They came on the 11th. For this week on page 392 on the snow map of the country you can see where the central plateau from Taupo to Napier would be snowed in. Last years almanac correctly predicted the flood in Turangi that caused the rafting tragedy. I am doing the best I can with what is available to me. I am seeking usefulness and some are finding the work of value. It is unhelpful and just mean-minded to criticize somebody who is simply trying to provide an alternative service when one does not exist at the moment. To declare that long-range forecasting is impossible is not only bigotry and intellectually immature, but can be compared to the manager of the Smithsonian Museum who, it is said, closed the doors of the patent office in 1843 because he thought that everything had been invented.
True science is surely broadmindedness. Nobody who says something is impossible has the right to call himself a real scientist. To believe that something is impossible is, to my mind, the silliest belief of all.
If anyone wants to discuss my work, please go to my website and download then read my book. Then, at least, they will know what I am really saying, no more and no less.
Thanks for your comments Ken, however they do nothing to challenge our suspicions of your method. You continue to assert that 'not meteorologists, nor scientists, nor anybody university trained … know anything about weather'. Yet you provide no real evidence that your method works any better than pure chance. Testimonials from a few farmers and fishermen don't count as evidence. You state that farmers and fishermen don't 'have university chairs but that does not mean the ideas they have are invalid'. Quite true, but it doesn't mean they have to be right either. I knew a farmer that thought the Moon emitted its own light like the Sun.
You imply that there is a massive conspiracy going on, not just with the science surrounding weather, but with science in general as well as history. As an example you mention a Professor Gerald Hawkins, asserting that 'You cannot buy his books anywhere in Britain for the simple reason that he was an American'. Utterly false, Hawkins was an English astronomer, born in Great Yarmouth and educated at the Universities of Nottingham and Manchester, although he did go on to work in the US. You can go onto the British website for Amazon and buy his books for as little as a penny.
You attempt to support your argument that scientists are arrogant with a corrupted version of an urban myth. I refer to your mention of the museum manager closing the patent office. For one, it is naïve to think that a mere manager of a museum would have the authority to close the US Patent Office. Two, it seems to me that this is a myth perpetuated by people that fear science. And three, even it were true, a mistake made by one person should not condemn an entire community who don't think that way. Every sphere of inquiry has its individuals that cling to false ideas. I can give you a long list of astrologers, your heroes, who insisted that the Sun went around the Earth.
Speaking of the pseudoscience that is astrology, you continue to harp on about how 'all meteorologists were once astrologers, as were all doctors, scientists and all mathematicians'. So what? All humans were once cave dwellers who had never heard of soap. We've moved on, it's called progress. Yes, humans once thought that the planets and stars dictated our personality and controlled our destiny, but the rational and intelligent humans of modern society have ditched astrology along with tea leaf reading and human sacrifice. To suggest that without astrology we wouldn't have science, mathematics and computers is ridiculous. The ancient Greeks made great advances in mathematics and early science without worrying about whether Jupiter was rising in Aquarius.
You ask, 'Why should I not charge for the work I'm doing?' We're not saying you shouldn't charge for your work, we're just saying that people shouldn't buy it. If people want to waste their money after they've been warned, then that's their prerogative, we're just wanting them to be better informed while considering your product.
Regarding science you seem to adopt a contradictory stance. You appear to respect science, quoting it wherever you can to support your claims, yet when it challenges your beliefs you call it ignorant and arrogant and downright false. When science questions your claims you say things like 'Nobody who says something is impossible has the right to call himself a real scientist'. This demonstrates your desire to return to the old primitive, superstitious ways, when anything we wanted to imagine, no matter how silly, could be believed to be possible. As much as it may annoy you, science can say certain things are impossible. For example, we can categorically say that giant apes like King Kong and beasts like griffins are impossible. Anyone that tries to win a debate simply by parroting the claim, 'nothing is impossible', is really showing how weak their argument is.
First, 'On 2 February in the ODT I said the Shotover River would ice up in the last days of July. It did.' As usual you tend to exaggerate your claims, pretending that you predicted more than you really did. All the article said was this, 'Sub-zero temperatures which could freeze the Shotover River have been predicted this winter by long-range weather forecaster Ken Ring.' You said that it 'could' happen, not that it 'would', and you made no mention of when it would happen, that is, 'the last days of July'. The only person to mention July was the Shotover Jet spokesman who said that there was ice in the river in July 2007, so it's not exactly unheard of. Certainly you did predict the possibly of ice in the Shotover, by why do you have to embellish this prediction after the fact, adding details that weren't in the original?
Second, you claim that 'I said this winter would be breaking records for cold temperatures'. I could find no mention of this prediction in your almanac, in fact I found just the opposite. Under the heading 'Winter, South Island', you wrote, 'Christchurch may be the warmest. Blenheim, Greymouth, Ashburton, Timaru, Oamaru and Invercargill may be average to warmer. The rest may have average temperatures'. Under the heading 'Winter, North Island', you wrote, 'Whangerei may again be warmer than average, along with Opotiki and Napier. Gisbourne may again be cooler, and the rest may be on average figures'. There is no way any reasonable person reading your almanac could interpret these predictions as meaning this 'winter would be breaking records for cold temperatures'.
Third, 'In my almanac for 10 May I mentioned the potential for tornadoes in the BoP. They came on the 11th.' Yet in your section entitled 'Severe Weather' there was a single sentence: 'Few, if any, tropical cyclones are expected in 2009'. Are tornadoes not a severe weather event in your opinion? And why don't you mention predicting the other tornadoes that have occurred, such as the Kaitaia tornado on the 4th July, the Taranaki tornado on the 21st July or other severe North Island storms over the 11th/12th July or even the large Fiordland earthquake on the 15th July?
Fourth, 'For this week on page 392 on the snow map of the country you can see where the central plateau from Taupo to Napier would be snowed in'. Again you exaggerate greatly, pretending that you said something that in fact you didn't. For readers unfamiliar with Mr Ring's 2009 almanac, for every day of the year he provides a small map of NZ entitled 'Frost/Snow' and shades in the parts that he believes have a potential for frost and/or snow. He gives no hint as to whether this shaded area might receive a mild frost or a severe snowstorm. There is no mention or hint on page 392, which corresponds to Monday 5th October, that the shaded area means snow, or that it will be severe. It is true that the Taupo to Napier area is the only shaded area on the entire country for that day. However, if we are to interpret a shaded section to mean that the designated area will be 'snowed in', as you do in hindsight, then how do you explain the days before and after Monday 5th? The 'Frost/Snow' map for Sunday 4th shows nothing in the North Island and approximately 80% of the South Island is shaded in. So why wasn't most of the South Island snowed in on Sunday? It was the same for Friday 2nd and Tuesday 6th, with the addition of the Wellington region. If a mention on the 'Frost/Snow' map means you're going to be snowed in, why weren't they? Even if this prediction was correct for this one day, which it wasn't, your predictions for the days before and after it were completely wrong. We also need to remember that while you draw our attention to your utterly bogus interpretation to the map on Monday 5th, the severe snow fall that caused cars to be stranded actually happened on the Sunday, the day before. Even if people using your almanac interpreted it the same way you did, they would still have been stranded in the snow storm, since they would have been expecting it a day after it happened. No doubt you will say that users should allow a 3 to 4 day window for your predictions to eventuate, but this is worthless as regards severe weather events. If we were to take any notice of your 'Frost/Snow' maps, always interpreting them as severe snow and extending them each side of the predicted event, then we'd be living in a state of perpetual fear and afraid to go out.
Fifth, you say that 'Last years almanac correctly predicted the flood in Turangi that caused the rafting tragedy'. I don't have access to that almanac so it's difficult to judge, but based on the very vague nature of most predictions in other almanacs, I doubt that it can be interpreted as such without a large dollop of imagination and selectively ignoring the same predictions that didn't come to pass. It's amazing how you claim to have predicted the severe weather events surrounding some of our most well known disasters, even the 2004 Asian Tsunami, but always after they've happened. Why don't you warn people before they occur? In your book 'The Lunar Code', you tell the story of approaching weather experts at the TV stations and asking if they knew about astronomy affecting the weather:
You Ken are deeply involved in challenging the scientific belief in climate change at the moment, demanding that scientists produce more convincing data to support their claims. You likewise should be attempting to produce convincing data to support your weather forecasting method. Surely good evidence applies just as much to you as it does to them, and as I've said, testimonials from a few farmers and searching for and quoting vague predictions that might be interpreted as being correct after the fact is not evidence.
Thanks for your response. You have raised some other points which Id like to reply to, if I may.
"We're just wanting them to be better informed while considering your product."
Have you ever heard the expression 'live and let live'? Are you the Consumer Institute now? Your opinion is only your own, you dont speak for any group, nor have you done market surveys. Your opinion is therefore cancelled out by only one other who may have an opposite viewpoint. 10,000 buy my NZ almanacs each year. Random House are continually doing market surveys. They have to, because so many books these days are not popular enough. The same farmers buy my forecasts for following years, year after year. Big corporations, NZ's biggest names, buy my yearly report packages. Some multimillion dollar corporates in Australia buy my regional reports. Australias biggest TV network employs me as their longrange weather consultant, now for the third year running. I am seen in four States, once a month, with a round-up of the next month ahead. Longrange is my business, supported mainly by the agricultural sectors in Australia, NZ and Ireland. Come on man, are they all silly billies? Are they ALL misinformed, waiting to hear the real truth from you?
"You complained that I said that it 'could' happen, not that it 'would'."
I don't ever say things WILL happen, if I can help it, because I am not a god and weather is an inexact science. I point to potentials, thats all one can do.
"(Re: Shotover icing up), and you made no mention of when it would happen, that is, 'the last days of July'."
Yes I did say exactly when, in my almanac 2009, p12 and p265, also all promo for this year's book in all media!
"you claim that 'I said this winter would be breaking records for cold temperatures'. I could find no mention of this prediction in your almanac, in fact I found just the opposite."
Incorrect, you are cherry-picking out of context. See p11 under June "..country may be cooler than average" and July "very low temperatures", "July may be remembered for some very low temperatures" and p12: it may even be cold enough to freeze the Shotover River", "Some temperatures may be record cold", "global warming will be something to be longed for". Yes, overall some places had an average winter, exactly as the metservice and NIWA noted, and as I did way before them in the almanac.
"there was a single sentence: 'Few, if any, tropical cyclones are expected in 2009'. Are tornadoes not a severe weather event in your opinion? "
I was correct, few TCs occurred. As for tornadoes, I got the big ones. I obviously can't get every strong wind system that the media loves to hype up as a tornado, what they call these days 'mini-tornadoes'
"why aren't you taking a more active role in warning people?"
But I do. I do many radio talks on many radio stations, both here and in Australia. I warned in the Australian media two Junes ago of the potential for floods coming last February across QLD and it came to pass. Media here won't publish my warnings because the metservice have too great a hold on what gets to editors. I cannot get anything published in the NZ Herald despite many letters and articles sent. Only the independent newspapers host my columns. In the background various organisations take heed of what I tell them. The announcement that Turoa would stay open till November came a day after I emailed Mike Smith (Ruapehu mountain manager) that snow would remain on the slopes throughout summer and advised him to stay open. The Santa Parades for the major towns in NZ get their dates from me. I do what I can and would do more if allowed to. For instance, you mentioned last years Turangi fatality. I had heavy rain listed in the Central Plateau April 11-13 (p126 almanac 2008). The tragedy was on the 14th, after the rivers had a chance to become swollen. It is not my fault if people don't look this up before they plan a trip to the mountains. I can't force people to read my work.
"You likewise should be attempting to produce convincing data to support your weather forecasting method."
I think that anything I write will be taken apart by you like a mad snarling dog. I feel you are looking for fault to support your belief that I could not possibly have discovered something useful that others have not. It is the usual Kiwi knocking machine and it is unnecessary. Why don't you turn your energies towards the Grand Scam of all, global warming, and concentrate in that, the web of lies that is going to disadvantage billions and cause underdeveloped countries to become impoverished through financial suppression by the western world? The ETS will be hugely costly to NZ. But instead you go for the easy target. Can you not accept that there may be many who just may be getting something from my work? Why else was the book in the top 10 of the bestsellers list for the NZ Book trade (nonfiction ) two weeks ago? Is everybody deluded, and you the only one correct? It is discriminatory bullying to attack me for getting the odd forecast wrong in your eyes(what about NIWA saying June and July would be warmer?)and leaving alone the Metservice, whose track record resulted in the Herald Gallup Poll of 1998 concluding that only 37% of the public had faith in them. In the Shotover River article of 2 Feb (ODT), Bob McDavitt said the Shotover would not get cold enough to ice up. How wrong he was. Easy to quote someone out of context, as you continue to do. You say I should warn people before the events happen. Well, my warnings are in my almanacs, they are written well before the relevant year has begun. I don't write them afterwards, in hindsight. Yet that's what NIWA and metservice do, they tell us what weather we've just had, as if we weren't there. And to say I should be going to the locations and warning the people before every major event is so silly it is not worth addressing. We have Civil Defence organisations for that.
Ken, you seem to believe that popularity indicates the truthfulness of an opinion. However, the truth of a matter is not reached by taking a vote. It doesn't matter how many people buy your books, just as it doesn't matter how many idiots buy yearly astrology guides or Bibles or Korans. The popularity of these books just means that too many people are sucked in by fantasies. And anyway, from a country with a population of over 4 million, the support of a meagre 10,000 hardly seems like you have the majority on your side. If mere support from a majority of the public vindicates a method, then the likes of the Metservice and NIWA win hands down.
You reject my criticisms by saying that my opinion is only my own and it's cancelled out by just one opposing opinion, that I don't speak for any group, that I'm just knocking you since it is the Kiwi way to criticise those that stand out from the crowd. Again you confuse opinions with facts, believing that adding up public opinions for and against a claim arrives at whether something is true. If this were the case, if this was how science decided things, then again you would lose big time since there are many more opinions against you than for you. But this isn't about you or your celebrity, it's about whether your long range weather forecasting method and the ancient divination techniques that you claim explain it can be backed up with reasoned argument and evidence. Of course you may have discovered something that others haven't, but you need prove your claims, and being on a bestseller list isn't proof. And what group may I ask is it that you officially represent that gives your opinions some authority? Astrology NZ perhaps?
Regarding my gripe about your ODT Shotover prediction, you reply that 'I don't ever say things WILL happen', and yet your comment to me clearly did: 'On 2 February in the ODT I said the Shotover River would ice up in the last days of July'. Would, not could. Likewise it doesn't matter if you mentioned 'July' in your almanac, you clearly told me that you said 'July' in the ODT which you did not. I acknowledged that you did correctly predict ice, my gripe was that when you related this article to me you exaggerated what you actually said in the article. Once you saw that ice had occurred, you told me that you knew it WOULD happen. Furthermore, your prediction on pg 265 actually said that the 'Shotover River may freeze over'. It didn't freeze over, there were, as you said on TV after the fact, merely 'ice blocks floating down'. When rivers freeze over you can walk across. I know it is a minor point but this is how psychics appear to be more accurate than they really were, by subtly modifying their original statements to match later events. It's the same with your insistence that your almanac did say that this winter would break records for cold temperatures. It is you that are cherry picking predictions. You seem to sprinkle predictions throughout your almanac so no matter whether it is hot or cold, wet of fine, there will be a comment hidden somewhere that supports the weather that did occur. It's like that trick when performing a coin toss, 'Heads I win, tails you lose'. The fact is that anyone perusing your book and curious as to what the 2009 winter might be like would naturally read your section entitled 'Summary for 2009: Winter'. This contains no hint of a potentially bitter cold winter. It is no good claiming that you have placed statements elsewhere in the book where you have expressed a different view. As for your claim that the severe weather I mentioned and that you failed to predict was just media hype, the insurance companies have received considerable claims for damage and don't consider them inconsequential.
Another example of your contradictory statements involves the media. You say you mentioned the Shotover River prediction 'in all media' and that you warn people on 'many radio stations', and yet two sentences later you state that 'media here won't publish my warnings' and that 'only the independent newspapers host my columns'. What papers would that be? The New Age Weekly or Astrologer Monthly? The only notable independent newspaper I'm aware of is the ODT and they don't print your columns. I have never seen your column in any of the main NZ newspapers nor heard you host a spot on any popular radio station. You can't say that you're a bestseller and that everyone from farmers to big corporations support you and then in the same breath say that everyone is against you. You can't say you're warning people about severe weather when hardly anyone in the country is exposed to your warnings. Let's assume that your warnings are correct. It's obvious that merely printing them in your almanac is having little effect, so you need a new strategy if your concern for your fellow man is really your motivation rather than simply making money selling a service to the same people that go to psychics and buy dream catchers.
As I've said, at the moment you are actively challenging climate change proponents, although why you bother I don't know since it's just your opinion which is easily cancelled out, and you speak for no group, but anyway, you implore them to produce evidence for their claims. I am simply adopting your stance and asking that you also produce evidence for your claims, and if you insist on referring me back to astrology and ancient divination techniques, then provide evidence that they work.
Considering you have made a career out of criticising people — remember that you have just asserted that 'not meteorologists, nor scientists, nor anybody university trained … know anything about weather' — I think it's a little hypocritical that you say I can't do likewise and challenge your methods.
Considering you have made a career out of criticising people..
Perhaps you need to have some facts pointed out to you. I have not made a career out of criticising people - you have. My website is not called Silly Beliefs. You go after alternative theories with some kind of vendetta, which says more about you than your work, hiding behind a nom de plume. Who are you? John? Is that John Smith, or are we not allowed to know? I stand by my ideas and put my name on the line. So who's the coward? I don't mind criticism if it is fair. Yours is unconditional, because you have assumed I am in the same league as armchair astrologers who are as removed from real astrology as it is possible to get, and you criticise everything I do. When I get something right it is, well it rmust have been a fluke or a coincidence, because your basic silly belief seems to be that anything you disagree with is wrong, unnecessary and therefore evil; so evil that the person you are critical of should not be allowed to operate his business. You display this every time you mention astrology. I suggest you have done as much study in that subject as you have done in my methods; a grade above zero. Sir Isaac Newton was an astrologer, and he was the father of modern science. You seem to also have a tolerance factor of zero of those who think differently from you. This is not the Taleban, not Stalinist Russia, people can make up their own minds, they don't need a self-appointed watchdog to explain the world to them and to tell them what to buy and when, and who to believe.
There are many more opinions against you than for you
Incredible. You have amassed all opinions? Did you do a phone poll? I think you missed my street or I would have been told. I think you missed whole countries, because in my feedback emails no mention has been made of any survey.
Would vs could
It clearly upsets you that I predicted, in February, the Shotover icing up in the last days of July. Now you are saying "icing over" is not "freezing". So unless I say exactly what you want to hear later, your choice of words, my work is invalidated? I do accept that my language may be a little vague at times, but that is the nature of weather forecasting. There are often several possible outcomes and intensities associated with a weather system. The vagueness is not a deliberation to deceive, it is in the maybe, in the same league as economists talking about the direction of commodity prices, the NZ dollar and house prices in the longterm. Yet I don't see them getting the same treatment.
I have never seen your column in any of the main NZ newspapers nor heard you host a spot on any popular radio station.
Well, go for a ride in Google. Try Ken Ring for TV3, for ABC regional stations in Australia, also 2UE and 2GB, for Independent newspapers, for RadioLive, for NewstalkZB and type in magazines. That's for starters. Then try Ken Ring for Ireland. But just because YOU haven't seen this is laughable.
You speak for no group
I am often asked to speak to farmers on both sides of the Tasman, and in the UK. I am approached to speak for Biodynamic associations, those who farm and garden by the moon. I speak, when asked, to fishermen. I am on monthly media spots in all these areas. If they didn't think I spoke for them, why on earth would they want to have me on?
anybody university trained (don't) know anything about weather'
They would only know if they lived out in it all the time, like farmers do. You can't get it from books. When you open a book no weather comes out. Weather is an experienced thing, that people gradually get an awareness about, then an intuition, just as the animals, birds, fish, insects and plants do. A cow hasn't got a meteorological degree, yet a farmer will look at what a cow does and get a weather imminence from that. A fisherman will watch mullet jumping and do the same. I've never seen a mullet browsing the science section at the Auckland Library. An experienced mariner will see a dolphin and know a storm is probably approaching, from the direction the dolphin is swimming in. The creatures live it and know what to do.
I think it's a little hypocritical that you say I can't do likewise and challenge your methods.
Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but you can't fairly challenge any methods unless you properly study them.
Hi Ken. I have no problem with criticising what I see as silly beliefs, and neither do you. Think of global warming. Criticise means 'to find fault with'. Your career as an alternative weather forecaster is only possible because you have found fault with conventional meteorology. You take every opportunity to tell the public that meteorology is flawed and that its proponents know nothing about the weather. You use the media, write books and debate in public and on the internet to convince people that you have found fault with conventional meteorology. If any academic challenges your view you tell them in no uncertain terms that they are mistaken, that you have found fault with their view of the weather. Not only do you criticise the knowledge and integrity of meteorologists and climate scientists, you do likewise to historians, politicians, newspaper editors and TV weather presenters, accusing them of being complicit in a conspiracy against ancient weather knowledge. You even criticise or find fault with my view, and while I encourage criticism, you can't say that you don't criticise people.
Speaking of criticism, I would prefer it if you would attack my view and not me personally. Saying I'm hiding, calling me a coward and wanting to know who I am suggests you want to come around and break my kneecaps. I have no respect for people that attack the person rather than their argument. As regards my beliefs and general worldview, you can discern far more about me from our website than I can from yours. All I have done is criticise your grasp of science and history, and from this deduced that your weather predictions are a waste of money. From reading our website you will discover I'm an atheist and that I don't believe in silly things like psychic mediums. You are quite welcome to reciprocate and place articles on your site challenging my view of the world. I won't be offended.
You claim that 'real astrology' is nothing like the astrology that the rest of the world talks about. If you're talking about gravitational fields, tides, perigees and the declination of the moon, as you often do, then you are talking about astronomy, not astrology. However, if you're referring to things like 'Cancer typically brings downpours [and] the Moon will be in Pisces, a wet sign' (which are quotes from you), then this is exactly the nonsense we would expect from armchair astrologers. You said Sir Isaac Newton was an astrologer. You mention astrology and science in the same breath as if they were connected. Today Newton is rightly considered a scientific genius. However he is not renown or respected for his obsessive interest and research into astrology or religion or alchemy. People don't respect him because he stared at the Sun or stabbed a needle between his eye and eye socket just to see what would happen. We don't care about his questionable mental health or his trials over his covert homosexuality. Newton wrote far more on the likes of religion and alchemy than he did on science, and yet if it wasn't for his scientific insights, if all we had of Newton's work was his thoughts on astrology, he would now just be considered another superstitious crank. For all the things that Newton got right, he also got a lot wrong, and that includes astrology. You can't hijack Newton's reputation and pretend his scientific achievements concerned astrology.
Like connecting astrology with science, you continually make false comparisons, saying I have zero tolerance and vilifying me by comparing me with the Taleban and Stalin. If this were true you would be dead by now or in an interment camp breaking rocks. I am simply challenging your view, just as you are challenging the view of conventional meteorologists. Yet when I do it I am told by you to let people make up their own minds, that they don't need me to tell them what to believe. But seemingly you feel that they do need you to tell them what to believe regarding the weather. Should I feed privileged that you see our website as a threat to your business?
You asked if I had amassed all opinions about your methods, implying that you believe public support is in your favour. Just more contradictions. You yourself admitted that only 10,000 people in a country of over 4 million buy your almanac, that the media won't print your columns, articles and letters, that academia is against you, and yet you seem to believe that the majority of Kiwis are behind you? What survey of yours supports this conclusion? Don't bother answering, since like you said, if I have never been surveyed about Ken Ring, then it never happened.
You mentioned the Shotover prediction. I have no problem with you getting some predictions correct. You base your guesses on what has happened before, and based on chance alone you will naturally get it right now and again. I would be more surprised if you didn't. However, since you bring up these same correct predictions every time you're interviewed, it makes me suspect that they are the only ones you can highlight. You make tens of thousands of predictions every year, you should have an enormous list of successful predictions you can trot out when asked. Yet on TV3's Sunrise program a few weeks ago, what example do you give? The Shotover River. As for people predicting the movement of house and commodity prices, I have no more confidence in their methods than I do in yours.
When I said that I have never seen your column in any of the main NZ newspapers nor heard you host a spot on any popular radio station, I was saying that the average Kiwi is not very likely to be exposed to your predictions. You side stepped my challenge and suggested I try Google, neglecting to name these NZ newspapers. Likewise, apart from a single appearance of around 3 minutes to plug your almanac on TV3's Sunrise program, I haven't seen you on TV3. It was you that said 'all media' and 'many radio stations', implying that it would be unusual if we didn't come across your predictions on a regular basis.
You implied that my opinion was worthless since I spoke for no group, and now you defend your position by saying you speak to farmers and fishermen. Oh please, speaking TO a group is not the same as speaking FOR a group, as in officially relaying their views to the public. Again you confuse the support of a few farmers as validating your beliefs. This is as empty as the claim that the support of a billion Muslims validates the Koran and belief in Allah. Perhaps they listen to you for the same reason I listen to Monty Python?
If farmers were the experts in weather prediction as you claim, if they simply need to look at a cow, then why in the hell do they need your books and guidance? If they are running to you then that proves that they don't know what the weather will do. You claim that the weather is all down to the moon and its perigees and declination etc. Growing up on a farm I would say that most farmers know squat about astronomical matters. This is not a criticism of farmers, city dwellers likewise know squat about farming. As for dolphins, last year I was lucky enough to spend some time with some marine biologists who were doing dolphin research. Dolphins were swimming in every direction and yet the marine biologists didn't interpret this movement as weather predicting. Of course being scientists, unlike fishermen, you will claim that they know nothing. However, I don't think dolphins are all that concerned with getting wet from an approaching rain storm.
Regarding weather knowledge you insist that 'You can't get it from books', and yet you claim to be the author of at least 14 books on the weather and climate in NZ. And you actively sell these books to a gullible public, books such as 'The Lunar Code: How the Moon affects the Weather on Earth', 'Ken Ring's Predicting the Weather by the Moon', 'Moon and Weatherlore' and of course your almanacs, 'Ken Ring's Predict Weather Almanac and Isobaric Maps'. If the public, including academics, can't get weather knowledge from books, then aren't you selling your books under false pretences? Which is it Ken, can we learn from books or not? And please don't say that you didn't mean books per se, that you actually meant academics spend their time inside labs with their equations rather than out in the field experiencing the real world. Many scientists spend a vast amount of time doing field research, far more than I suspect you do, and with far more sophisticated technology to record data.
You finish by insisting that I can't challenge you since I haven't studied your methods. How you know this you don't say. I have read your website, as the numerous quotes from it on our site shows, but no doubt you'll insist that reading and understanding are two different things. Since I disagree with you on many points of science and history, then in your view I obviously haven't studied the details properly and have thus failed to comprehend. I have also read some of your books: 'The Lunar Code', 'Predicting the Weather by the Moon' and of course some of your almanacs, although I admit I haven't fully read your 'Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws'. But as you've said, books are useless for obtaining weather knowledge, so naturally this must include yours. Or are you now going to tell me that your books are valuable resources, it's only the books written by other people that are worthless?
The fact is Ken, if someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean that they haven't studied your claims, it could simply mean that you are wrong.
I have no respect for people that attack the person rather than their argument.
Well, that's a laugh. Who has put up a website being critical of me, with my name on it? And have I done the same previously to you? Hardly. The bully is the one who starts the fight. So who is the bully here and who taking it on himself to be personally critical of one man? Am I to stand by and allow some surname-less John to do that and not retaliate? Yet it seems if I do hit back I am then accused of mounting a personal attack.
You mention astrology and science in the same breath as if they were connected. Today Newton is rightly considered a scientific genius. However he is not renown or respected for his obsessive interest and research into astrology or religion or alchemy.
Newton wrote his Principiia about gravitation in astrological physics. Maybe you don't know much about astrology, perhaps only what you read in the Womens Weekly. Astrology is primarily about gravitation.
But seemingly you feel that they do need you to tell them what to believe regarding the weather. Should I feed privileged that you see our website as a threat to your business?
I don't tell people what to believe, or whose website is not worth subscribing to, nor whose books are fraudulent, as you do. My opinion is just that, and it is stated so on my website. I do allow and respect other opinions, and the right to express them and earn from them, unlike you. I have good friends who are meteorologists. We happily disagree and agree on many matters. But we don't want to annihilate each others businesses as you seem to want to do to me. In my website, articles, books etc I name no one by name unlike you. Can you not see the difference??
You yourself admitted that only 10,000 people in a country of over 4 million buy your almanac
I didn't say "only", you did. 5000 is considered a bestseller in NZ. You can't be a NZer, anyone living here knows there are not 4 million households in NZ. The babies or children wouldn't buy one, nor the illiterate, nor the prison population who can't get to the bookshop, nor the hospital population, nor the rest home inhabitants, nor someone else in a household where there is a book already. Then there are those of different languages, those who just don't buy books because they can't afford to, and tourists passing through. Kind of cuts into that 4 million.
Likewise, apart from a single appearance of around 3 minutes to plug your almanac on TV3's Sunrise program, I haven't seen you on TV3.
The links do not stay available for long. I still list some of the old ones on www.predictweather.com
If farmers were the experts in weather prediction as you claim, if they simply need to look at a cow, then why in the hell do they need your books and guidance?
A cow is not going to tell you much about next year's weather.
I don't think dolphins are all that concerned with getting wet from an approaching rain storm.
I don't either. They are chasing fish.
books are useless for obtaining weather knowledge, so naturally this must include yours.
Well, of course it is relative. People have been farming and reading weather from clouds, tidal movements and moon orbits way before books were invented. Astrology was primarily calendric, to keep track of the planting and harvesting seasons.
Not much more to say, really. Can't help noticing that as this drags on and you always require the last shin-kicking word, your points of debate seem to be getting more and more desperate.
Hi Ken. So now I'm a bully as well as a coward. However a bully is not defined as someone 'who starts the fight'. A bully is one who victimises a much weaker opponent, knowing that they don't have the skills or strength or intellect to fight back. Is that how you see yourself Ken, as a weak victim unable to muster a defence?
The fact is Ken that you did start this debate, or 'fight', as you want to call it. You running to your publisher Random House when I attempted to comment on claims you made in a local newspaper prevented me from expressing my opinion. It was this censorship of my opinion that resulted in the creation of our website. I'm not saying that you personally wished to censor my opinion, but discussions between you, Random House and the paper eventually resulted in the paper deciding that it would be best if I was not heard from.
Why this obsession with me as a person, rather than concentrating on providing evidence that my criticisms are false? If you had read our article in its entirety you would have seen my name at the bottom, but how does knowing my name change anything? Do you honestly not understand the difference between attacking the 'person' and attacking their arguments? Do I ridicule your appearance, your dress sense, your choice of car or the place you choose to live? That would be a personal attack, criticising things in your life that have no bearing on your claims surrounding the weather. When you criticise Al Gore over his global warming claims, do you feel you are attacking him as a person, or are you merely attacking his claims on climate change? Do you think Al Gore would take your criticisms personally, or do you think he would realise that it's just about his climate claims, you're not attacking his family? Furthermore, try and imagine how you might publicly criticise the claims Al Gore makes without giving any hint of who you are referring to, so that you can't be accused of attacking him 'personally'. Try and explain to me how I might challenge your views on the weather without revealing your name, without making it 'personal'? If I merely mentioned forecasting the weather by the moon, might not the odd person infer that I was talking about you? Should I then deny I am discussing claims made by you so as not to involve you personally? The fact is Ken, discussion of any subject often entails mentioning the opinions of specific people, such as Al Gore and Ken Ring. The difference lies in whether you challenge their opinions or you shift your attack onto them as individuals. You seem more concerned with being able to recognise me in the street than pointing out where I might have made mistakes.
You say you never name anyone that you disagree with. What about Al Gore? And have you forgotten about your attack on Bill Keir of the Auckland Astronomical Society in your article 'Witch-hunting returns', where you concluded by likening him to followers of Adolf Hitler? And what about all the meteorologists and academics that you claim are ignorant and/or deliberately suppressing the truth about the weather? Even if you don't mention them by name, do you think they don't know that you are talking about them? Do you honestly think their families and friends don't know whom you are referring to?
Like movie stars and other wannabe celebrities, you have elected to go public with your theories on weather forecasting. Originally your books were just called 'Predict Weather Almanac', but now they're called 'KEN RING's Predict Weather Almanac'. If the opinions are positive you want your name in lights, but if negative, you don't what us to mention your name at all. Sorry Ken, that's not how it works. If you want to protect your name then you need to defend your claims and opinions.
You flatter me if you think I have the power to 'tell' people what to believe and what books to avoid. Like you I am only expressing an opinion, and nowhere on our website do I state that it is someone else's opinion. I try to support my opinion with reasoned argument and leave it up to the reader to decide whether I have succeeded. I respect everyone's right to hold personal opinions but I don't feel compelled to necessarily respect those opinions. Should I respect the opinion of a racist that believes some races are superior to others? Likewise I don't respect the opinions of astrologers since I find their arguments badly flawed.
This leads me to your naïve insistence that all scientists are really practising astrology. In your book The Lunar Code you make a fleeting mention of 'Astrologer Sir Isaac Newton' and you now inform me that 'Newton wrote his Principiia about gravitation in astrological physics'. To claim that Newton wrote about 'astrological' physics is as bogus as claiming Einstein wrote about 'astrological' physics. And let's remember that Einstein's theory of gravity replaces Newton's. Part of what Newton wrote about in his 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) was certainly about gravity and included comments on the Moon's orbit and tides etc., and it was revolutionary. But nowhere in these books will you find mention of astrology. You can't just tack the word 'astrological' onto any piece of science that you wish to lay claim to. You as an astrologer insisting that physics is really 'astrological' physics is just as ridiculous as a witch insisting that physics should really be called 'magical' physics. Nor can you even legitimately describe Newton as an astrologer. While Newton had many silly beliefs regarding religion and alchemy, he was not all that concerned with astrology, if at all. It is just another myth that you have been sucked into. Try reading this short article — Isaac Newton and Astrology, and this one — Isaac Newton's occult studies. In your book The Lunar Code you noted 'Kepler's significance in the history of astronomy'. Johannes Kepler was an astronomer who did dabble in astrology and died before Newton was born. However due to Kepler's astronomical discoveries, it is said that, 'in some respect, Kepler was the astrologer who destroyed astrology'.
As for astrology being primarily about gravitation, this is also bogus. Certainly many amateur and professional astrologers no doubt believe that it is the mysterious force of gravity that causes the effects they try to predict, but this belief is due to ignorance of science in general and gravity specifically. Lest you feel that I don't know what astrology is, let me quote a typical definition from my encyclopaedia:
The crucial thing I do know about astrology is that it is superstitious nonsense and your rabid insistence on harping back to it and other ancient divination techniques and primitive nonsense puts you in the same camp as wizards and priests. I think you need to define exactly what you understand astrology to mean, how it differs from astronomy and science in general and how and why it differs from that pushed by your brethren in the Woman's Weekly. Why don't professional astrologers know what astrology is truly all about as you claim to? Another conspiracy?
And yes you are correct, you said you sell 10,000 books a year and it was I that said, 'only' 10,000? I mentioned 4 million because your number by itself means nothing until readers everywhere in the world know what the population of the target country is. Only then can they judge how many are rushing out to buy your book. For example, 10,000 in Australia wouldn't be as good as 10,000 in NZ. I'm also a little confused over your reply about your TV3 appearances. My TV doesn't have interactive 'links', only moving pictures, none of which you seem to be in.
As for my 'points of debate getting more and more desperate', I'm not sure why desperation would be setting in. You haven't given me reason to reconsider any of my criticisms. Sure this debate may cause me to lose a few potential clients and I'll sell a few less books but that won't … ummmm … No, wait a minute, that's you that sells the books isn't it? Christians assure me that I have a lot more to fear by dismissing their beliefs than I do by dismissing yours.
Let me finish with a poem on astrology by Michael Flanders:
You running to your publisher Random House when I attempted to comment on claims you made in a local newspaper prevented me from expressing my opinion. It was this censorship of my opinion that resulted in the creation of our website. I'm not saying that you personally wished to censor my opinion, but discussions between you, Random House and the paper eventually resulted in the paper deciding that it would be best if I was not heard from.
I have absolutely no knowledge nor idea of what you are talking about. A publisher has no control over a newspaper. I have never wanted to stifle anyone's opinion or alternative viewpoint, unlike you. Me naming Bill Keir? Sure. The guy erected 3 websites dedicated to jackbooting me. You have done the same. Gareth Renowden is another who established an anti-Ken Ring website. My name heads these websites. I challenge you to find any website with someone's name on it that I have written, apart from Al Gores but politicians are name-able because they handle taxpayer-funds so are 'owned' by the public.
Why this obsession with me as a person
Exactly, that's what I ask.
Originally your books were just called 'Predict Weather Almanac', but now they're called 'KEN RING's Predict Weather Almanac'.
Incorrect, what is on a cover is entirely a publisher's decision, that goes for words and pictures. I would have been just as happy for the books to be called Predict Weather Almanacs as they still are in Australia.
This leads me to your naïve insistence that all scientists are really practising astrology.
That's a laugh. I don't even believe that! They used to, but astrology changed as have the sciences. You had to be a qualified astrologer to practise medicine 300 years ago. It wasn't enough to prescribe a medicine it would have had to be administered e.g. while Venus was rising. Medicine has come a long way, so has astrology. You appear not to have caught up with that. If you want to know what Chinese medicine is all about, don't ask your GP, ask a Chinese doctor. Similarly if you want to know what astrology is about, don't consult a western dictionary ask an astrologer. Otherwise you'll be misled by your own self-fulfilling prophecy.
your rabid insistence on harping back to it and other ancient divination techniques and primitive nonsense puts you in the same camp as wizards and priests.
I suggest you stop ranting and actually examine what I'm really saying. I claim the sea and air are one interacting and interfacing system, there is no vacuum gap separating them, they are joined at the hip. As such, both are subject to lunar gravitational forcing. This forcing is regular and cyclic. Therefore it can be temporally measured. It is pure logical commonsense. Weather balloons float higher on new and full moons, because there is a kingtide in the air at the same time as in the sea. That is modern empirical science, not 'ancient primitive divination nonsense' as you like to call it.
the Moon's gravity does not cause noticeable tidal forces in the human body. A 1kg melon held one metre above your head produces 200 times as much tidal effect in your body as does the Moon. Other people, buildings etc. would completely swamp any gravitational affect the Moon, planets or stars have.
Incorrect. You are thinking along the lines of the schoolboy physics model of gravitation of an apple falling from a tree. But imagine a moving tree and a moving ground and the picture changes. That's what happens between Sun, Moon and Earth and everything on Sun, Moon and Earth (which includes on sea and air), which was astrologically what Newton was really saying, but he was misinterpreted then and since. It eventually took an Einstein to understand and rewrite it and rename it.
No, wait a minute, that's you isn't it that sells the books?
No, its the shops and the publisher. Most authors have to have other sources of income. The actual book-buying population is very small and shrinking all the time, as the internet expands.
Sure this debate may cause me to lose a few potential clients and I'll sell a few less books
Ah, a lot clearer now. The reason for this website is to promote your books, and kicking my name around is your idea of a drawcard?
Ken, after just admitting that you have indeed publicly named people that have criticised you, such as Bill Keir and Gareth Renowden, you immediately turn around and try to deny it: 'I challenge you to find any website with someone's name on it that I have written, apart from…' . That reminds me of the joke from Monty Python's 'Life of Brian', which I'll paraphrase: 'What have the Romans ever done for us? I mean, apart from the roads, sanitation, education, law and order, wine, irrigation, medicine and the aqueducts, what have the bloody Romans ever done for us?'
You say that you can legitimately criticise Al Gore because he handles taxpayer-funds. Only Americans can argue this. You have not paid a cent in taxes to Al Gore. However, if by paying money to someone does allow you to challenge their views, then since I have 'foolishly' spent money on your products and services then I can criticise you. I 'own' you. Since you have some of my money, I want to see some value, and so far I believe you are wasting my investment.
You say that your publisher's renamed your books 'KEN RING's Predict Weather Almanac'. Obviously they know what you seem not to grasp, that your weather forecasting method is most easily identified in the public mind with the name 'Ken Ring'. Since you can't understand the difference between 'the weather prediction method promoted by Ken Ring' and 'Ken Ring the person', are you now fearful that purchasers of your book might believe they have actually purchased you rather than just your weather predictions? One way I could prove to you that I'm not picking on you personally would be for you to hand your business on to one of your assistants. You would then find that my criticisms would be directed at 'JOE BLOGGS's Predict Weather Almanac'.
As for astrology, look Ken, no one cares that a doctor might have believed in astrology 300 years ago. 3000 years ago they might have believed in the Sun god Ra. It appears it is actually you who have not caught up with all the changes that have happened over the centuries. Stop living in the past. We've realised that all that stuff was superstitious nonsense, it's time you did too.
You say that if I 'want to know what astrology is about, don't consult a western dictionary ask an astrologer'. I could equally say that if you want to know about weather forecasting, don't ask an astrologer like Ken Ring, ask a meteorologist. And what's this derogatory rubbish about 'western' dictionaries? Is this similar to people deriding 'western' science in favour of 'eastern' science? Science is science, there are no western and eastern or southern versions. If science works, it works the same everywhere. Do you believe there is 'western' gravity and 'eastern' gravity? You reject a typical and well accepted definition of astrology, in both the West and East I might add, and yet still won't tell us what astrology means to you. I clearly asked you to 'define exactly what you understand astrology to mean, how it differs from astronomy and science in general and how and why it differs from that pushed by your brethren in the Woman's Weekly.' You claim to be a published expert in this field, so why won't you explain to us what astrology is in the 21st century and why you still believe in it.
While you're at it, why is it that you can read something into Newton's work on gravity that the entire scientific community can't, both West and East? You even go on to arrogantly imply that Einstein had no original thoughts, no genius except, like you, of being able to understand that when Newton said one thing he actually meant something else? And please try something better than 'imagine a moving tree' and 'which was astrologically what Newton was saying'. Simply putting the words 'astrologically' and 'Newton' in the same sentence explains nothing.
As for the sea and air having no vacuum gap between them, why do you mischievously imply that scientists have ever claimed that they thought there was? Scientists know that the land, sea and atmosphere are all acted on by gravity. That's why we still have an atmosphere, because gravity is holding on to it. The question is not whether gravity, from the Earth, Sun and Moon, acts on the atmosphere, it is whether this influence causes the weather. You claim it does, yet there is no good evidence of this. It is no use falling back on 'pure logical commonsense'. Common sense is often not logical and often leads us completely astray as to how the universe works. Common sense suggests that the world is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that time is absolute. For most of history common sense insisted that gods influenced the weather. You have merely replaced one flawed idea with another, that gravity from the cosmos acting astrologically causes the weather.
And what's this crap that you don't sell your books. The only time I've seen you on TV this year, on the infomercial show Sunrise, you were shamelessly plugging your book, mentioning it by name and continually holding it up to the camera even though you weren't asked to. On the bright side it is good to hear that your book buying population is shrinking, and it's becoming more internet based. At least on the internet potential purchasers will have a chance to consider your claims alongside the claims of myself and others and make an informed choice whether to purchase.
As for your epiphany that my criticism of your silly beliefs is solely to promote my own books by publicly ridiculing you, obviously sarcasm, like science, is not your strong point either. I don't have any books or product of any description to sell, which you would know if you had read our article as you claim. I was suggesting that the only person that might suffer desperation in this debate was the person that might be losing book sales as a result of it. That would be you. All we try and offer on our website is enlightenment from superstition. And it's all free. And I must say that your comments have encouraged me to add more of your erroneous claims to our article, such as Alpha Centauri being in Andromeda and the Dogon tribe precision mapping the Sirius star system. Every little bit helps people understand your claims better and judge your standard of research and comprehension of science and history, so thanks.
Hello Silly Beliefs. I must compliment you on a great article, truly very thorough. You may be aware that Ken has been very actively publicising himself in Ireland this year and is about to come out with a book for 2010. As Erick Brenstrum, yourselves and others have pointed out, his forecasts, the ones he sells on his website for 89 euros, consist of simply going back in time 18 years and 10 days and recycling the climate data from the closest weather station. He's been making an interesting defense of his methods over on boards.ie and has admitted that his 'method' is based on astrology, "I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations, and lunar and solar cycles." (here)
He also appears to be retrospectively doctoring his forecasts. I outline it here and in subsequent posts, but briefly he made a foolish forecast predicting widespread significant snowfalls in Ireland in November which didn't come to pass, and then his forecast seemed to mysteriously change on his website, and surprise surprise, the snow forecasts disappeared to be replaced by something innocuous and meaningless.
Nevertheless, he appears to have an appeal to people's imagination. There are those who love the story of the underdog challenging the system, and Ken really plays that up, and some people are seduced by it.
Anyway, good luck, I love the site, keep up the good work.
Hi Brian, thanks for your comments re Ken Ring. Yes, I'd heard that he was now peddling his silly scheme in Ireland. As you'll be aware, phrases uttered by Ring such as the 'ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' and 'The moon answers to the sun but is also tethered to constellations' are all utter nonsense.
It's interesting that you've detected Ring retrospectively doctoring his forecasts. As he moves more to the Internet I suspect we will see more of this, since he doesn't seem to be aware that editing web pages doesn't always remove all traces of your previous efforts. I also agree that many people are attracted to the underdog and gravitate to anyone that challenges authority, whether they have a good argument, or in Ring's case, are one step away from the lunatic asylum.
The next time Ring is in Ireland, feel free to keep him.
I did ask for someone to tell me if it snowed anywhere in November in Northern Ireland as I suggested there was the potential to do, (On my website I had- and still have) "Chances of snow in Tipperary are in the last few days of November" and "Meath may get flurries mid and in the last week of November," and forecasts usually take in about an 80 mile radius of potential, both in my more detailed forecast and the altered briefer version, briefer because of space, but not changed. I had virtually said for in November, chance of odd falls of snow in parts of the north, and rain for the rest of the country. "Octo" who calls himself a professional meteorologist, posted there was no snow anywhere, just rain. I wanted that verified by others because I found that hard to believe as I was sure that it would have been cold enough at the times I suggested. I am 14,000 miles away so am at a disadantage, and reliant on observations by others. And it has been demonstrated a la ClimateGate that meteorologists and climatologists see no problem with creating falsifications to support their case..
This was indeed borne out when 'Druiske' then posted "there was snow on high ground in the south-east on Saturday night (28 Nov). There was a covering of snow on Mt Leinster in Carlow, which was gone by Tuesday morning (1st Dec). There were reports of snow in counties Laois, kilkenny,Waterford and Kerry that same weekend, also on higher ground". "Black Friar" also posted "There was close to a foot of snow on the top of lugnaquilla mtn co wicklow in parts last week with several inches at the bottom. High ground in co wicklow had a fair splattering and theres still some around lug as I type". "Kindredsporit" also posted "There was snow on top of the Galtee Mountains in Tipperary. Don't know how deep but you could see the white caps".
So now, on this Silly Beliefs thread, Brian's claim "a foolish forecast predicting widespread significant snowfalls in Ireland in November which didn't come to pass" is completely incorrect and mischievous. I never did say widespread significant snowfalls. I said widespread and significant rain, and there was, leading to flooding in many places. I said snow in the north, which there was.
The thing is, winter full moons have the moon's position far to the north, which generate north winds and colder temperatures. Winter new moons in the south associated with apogees or perigees are also cold breeders and these bring rain and snow depending on latitude. The next snow potential periods in Ireland are Dec 15-16, Dec 27-Jan 6, Jan 16-17, 23-25.
"54321" has posted "To be fair Ken Ring has had very good results since i started following his predictions earlier this year. What he said about the month of December seems to be turning out true as well just looking at the various pressure charts discussed on other threads".
So yes, I seem to be fairly well received in Ireland, maybe because what I am saying is something people can find helpful.
Sorry "SillyGuys.com" it looks like Mr Ring has done it again...!
Well done Mr Ring and you are welcome in Ireland anytime....!
Holycrap! Talk about persecution!
What is wrong with you and your silly beliefs team John, are you so jealous of Ken Ring, perhaps
scared that Ring may be right and a pseudoscience may actually hold some factual scientific credence? Boy are you over zealous in condemning this man and his ancient theories. Perhaps he's a wizard, or worse still a weather witch doctor who should be burnt at the stake. Relax, like astrologers, he is also an entertainer (ex-clown) who has the uncanny ability to draw on his intelligence to speak with some (arguably, from your standpoint) authority about the weather, and low and behold, how is this possible, predict climate and weather patterns well in advance, with substantial success. Call it luck, or call it a gift, but get off the guys back.
For me, Ken Ring has well in advance warned us about 'Climategate' (man-made global warming-yeah right!) and now the cats out of the bag with Copenhagen, and the greedy Maurice Strong and Ben Santa etc being shown as the tyrants they are. Ken Ring is alike Lord Monkton, someone who speaks sense about climate change and explains it in a sensible way, that any person can understand.
Footnote: I couldn't care less if you don't reply to my comment, because reading former comments in your forum, anyone who says something positive about Ken Ring is considered the village idiot and they too should be burnt at the stake!
Yes, you've found us out Leon. We are jealous of Ken, of his reputation of being a crank and of his spooky ability to be able to discern the future by reading the paws of cats. We lie awake at night, scared that he might be right and that it just might snow in Queenstown on June 10th 2010. We also fear that three stars in the Andromeda galaxy are conspiring with the planet Jupiter to bring forth rain on our planned Xmas barbecue.
You say you've listened to Ken speak intelligently and authoritatively on his ancient theories, and yet you apparently still don't understand how he claims to predict the weather. You say it's either due to 'luck' or 'a gift', yet Ring would disagree and say it is neither. He would claim that his predictions are based on solid astrological cycles and influences. Nothing to do with luck or some mysterious gift, so obviously his explanatory talks are not as clear and instructive as you believed.
You claim that he is able to 'predict climate and weather patterns well in advance, with substantial success'. Perhaps you should produce your proof of this, since Mr Ring has been unable to demonstrate the efficacy of his system to anyone that matters, hence the reason he still runs his scam from his house rather than being a wealthy, respected consultant to the nation's weather bureaus. Of course Ring will get some predictions correct since he sources and reuses old weather predictions, and people remember those that he got right and forget those that he didn't. Also people are only interested in the area that they live and never check to see if he made correct predictions for other parts of the country or the world. This is no different to believers in psychics, which includes Ken Ring, who are completely overawed by the one or two correct guesses that the psychic makes and are completely oblivious to the mountain of predictions that were wrong.
You claim that 'like astrologers, he is also an entertainer'. I suspect that here you are implying that as an entertainer what he does is harmless and we should leave him alone and not criticise him for making mistakes. I disagree. Comedians, singers and magicians are entertainers, the likes of astrologers, psychics and ex-clowns using astrology to predict the weather are not. No one pays good money to an astrologer to be entertained, just as no one pays a doctor or lawyer to be entertained. They are paying for a service, for information that they believe to be factual and helpful. No one would trust a doctor or lawyer who mislead their clients about their university education and based their medical or legal advice on centuries old "knowledge", much of which is now demonstrably wrong. Indeed, if doctors and lawyers such as these were operating in our community, the public would demand that their silly practices were exposed. So why does the public demand a high standard of accountability from doctors, lawyers, engineers etc and yet are willing to let people like Ring and psychics and crystal healers offer a service with no need to prove it actually works? Until these charlatans prove to the world that what they do is anything other than a money making scam, then they leave themselves open to challenges from skeptical, intelligent people. Rather than writing to us and pleading that we leave Mr Ring alone, just as believers in psychics also do with their heroes, we suggest you plead with Ring to produce scientific evidence that his method works. We expect scientists to demonstrate that cell phones, drugs, genetic engineering and new aircraft are safe, why don't you ask the same from Ken Ring?
Also the climate change debate and Ring's weather prediction service are separate issues. If you read Ring's discussions with reputable climate scientists concerning climate change, you will find that Ring never brings up the astrological nonsense that forms the basis of his weather predictions. Ring is simply parroting the doubts of skeptical scientists and is normally careful to hide exactly what methods he uses to analyse weather patterns. Even you agree that some of his historical and scientific 'facts' are wrong and you state that you don't care if is predictions for rain are incorrect. In other words, you appear to be promoting Ring solely because he is a climate change denier. We on the other hand are challenging Ring on his astrological weather predictions, not on the debate surrounding climate change. However, that said, his belief in astrology, psychics and other nonsense does reduce his credibility and if he has chosen the correct side in the climate debate, then I suspect it was just luck, guided by his bias against an authority critical of him, and certainly not his scientific knowledge. Ken Ring may be able to explain climate change in a way that you can understand it, just as parents can explain Santa Claus to small children, but that doesn't mean their explanations are correct. Deciding on climate change based on what Ken Ring says is like asking the pope if God exists.
You also do us a disservice by implying that we are similar to the Christian inquisitions and witch trials and wish harm on Mr Ring or his followers. We feel no ill will to Mr Ring personally nor do we wish any harm to befall him. We are merely expressing a reasoned opinion on claims that he makes regarding a service he is selling to the public, and we will let the public decide. You no doubt believe that the public needs to be informed on little known facts about climate change, we believe likewise regarding Ring's weather prediction claims. Furthermore, we don't believe that burning the village idiot at the stake helps them see the error of their ways, and it would also seriously impact on one's carbon footprint. We prefer new radical techniques, like education in science and skeptical thinking.
"hence the reason he still run's his scam from his house rather than being a wealthy, respected consultant to the nation's weather bureaus." (the nation's weather bureaus make more money when they are wrong, because then they qualify for further grants. I wish to be correct, which is why I get no funding. No one is going to fund someone who is achieving success without funding. Besides, are we talking about government-paid scientists? those who have been shown to be the ones who have cooked the books and fiddled the figures to "prove" global warming so they could qualify for massive funding? I have no desire to be peer-reviewed by frauds and liars. What would that achieve? That would put me on the same level as they. I try to deal in science, not made-up numbers that will fit on a graph to prove a theory. I only use raw data. The nation's weather bureaus seem to run on politics, not real science)
"his spooky ability to be able to discern the future by reading the paws of cats". (I never claim that, that's very funny)
"three stars in the Andromeda galaxy are conspiring with the planet Jupiter to bring forth rain on our planned Xmas barbecue". (I never claim that either, it's just as silly)
"He would claim that his predictions are based on solid astrological cycles and influences" (I never claim that. My predictions are based on moon and sun positions, pure astronomy, and astronomical relationships. These constituted the original astronomy which was the common ancestor with a science then called astrology, bearing little or no relationship with present-day astrology)
"Mr Ring has been unable to demonstrate the efficacy of his system to anyone that matters" (so farmers don't matter, the rural population of Ireland don't matter, the largest TV channel in Australia doesn't matter, and NZ and Australian farmers and fishermen, those who interview me and employ me for columns don't matter, in short only YOU matter? So are you royalty now?)
"This is no different to believers in psychics, which includes Ken Ring" (I never claim that I am a psychic)
"we suggest you plead with Ring to produce scientific evidence that his method works" (it's a bit obvious from posts here that the method works, you might want to read them again)
"Ring is simply parroting the doubts of skeptical scientists" (I don't think so. My website is the longest running skeptical website in either NZ or Australia. I have been writing on the nonsense of global warming since my first website went to air in 1996. Rather, it is more that they have been quoting me)
"(Ring)is normally careful to hide exactly what methods he uses to analyse weather patterns" (Well, I do not have just one method, anymore than there is just one way to get to Hamilton from Auckland. For instance, I use ingress charts for seasons, as do most Asian, Indian and east European longrange forecasters. It is neither a secret nor is any method ever exact)
"his belief in astrology, psychics and other nonsense does reduce his credibility" (your made-up stuff again, not my beliefs)
"we will let the public decide" (I think not. You call yourself the only intelligent and reasoned voice on the matter, and anyone who goes along with what I say is misguided, illinformed, gullible and throwing good money away. You believe they have to be told they are being ripped off, they cannot for themselves decide whether or not what I do is helpful and worth their investment)
"We prefer new radical techniques, like education in science and skeptical thinking." ( I think not. Mine is relatively new, you yourself call them radical. Meteorology is not a science, except the science of applying for funding, for travelling business and 1st Class on junkets to climate conferences, and the science of getting most forecasts incorrect more than two days out - by their own admissions. Skeptical thinking goes both ways, but I don't see much on this forum re the claims of meteorologists and climatologists that support and continue the huge AGW left-wing deception that is currently poised to successfully fiscally wreck the economies of countries of the western world, and keep the underdeveloped countries at starvation levels, all in the name of protecting the environment. Easier to go after the little guy than tackle these dire and bigger issues)
Ken, you may have deluded yourself that governments and taxpayers are conspiring against you and only fund enterprises whose ideas are wrong and/or are producing worthless products, but no intelligent person believes this. We don't pour millions into drug companies and medical research because they have a record of being wrong. You say that government-paid scientists are 'frauds and liars', and yet you willing admit that you obtain old weather data including isobaric maps, rainfall levels, temperatures, frost reading etc that were collected by these 'frauds and liars' for use in your predictions. Do you not see a problem here?
As for cats and predicting the future, have you forgotten that you wrote a book on palmistry for cats? Palmistry is the bogus practice of discerning future events. I'm not saying that you use this skill to predict the weather, merely that you claim to have this ability, or are you now saying that that book was all a lie, a rip-off for a gullible public? Also, I said that you 'believe' in psychics, not that you are psychic. This is based on your comments about attending psychic readings.
Concerning my facetious comment re distant stars and Jupiter raining on my barbecue, you deny that you claim these things impact on weather. Yet it is you Ken that utter such phrases as the 'ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' and 'The moon answers to the sun but is also tethered to constellations'. You are claiming that every single object in the universe has an impact on your 'astrological energy grid' and can therefore affect the moon and our weather. You can't ignore Jupiter for example and yet worry about far more distance stars in constellations that often have no connection to each apart from myths. This is the typical ignorance of the ancient astrologer speaking.
Regarding astrology, ancient astrology was never a science, and is actually little different from modern astrology. You now seemingly want to deny astrological cycles and influences and yet your material is littered with references to them: 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' and 'Astrologer Sir Isaac Newton … wrote his Principiia about gravitation in astrological physics' and 'Cancer typically brings downpours [and] the Moon will be in Pisces, a wet sign'. You want to have a foot in both camps, in science and in superstition, yet no 'pure' astronomy book will mention astrological energy grids or astrological physics or Pisces being a wet sign. If the 'astrology' you use is actually 'pure astronomy', then why do you keep trying to differentiate your astrology with 'Women's Weekly' astrology? Just call it astronomy and don't keep mentioning astrology. But we both know that you do mean astrology and not astronomy. The only difference between your astrology and that in the 'Women's Weekly' is that you predict rain and snow and they predict financial woes and tall dark strangers.
No, people such as farmers and fishermen and the largest TV channel in Australia do not matter when it comes to demonstrating whether there is good proof that something works. They only matter when one is trying to sell a product. The fact that the Pope has millions of supporters doesn't make him and his claims any less delusional. Millions of gullible supporters can't sway reason and evidence, and likewise neither can your small band of disciples. I've tried several times to get this point across to you, that counting up your disciples only proves their gullibility, nothing else. Do the millions who believe in Santa Claus make him real? When scientists want to know if a drug is safe and effective, they don't just ask a few sick people if they would buy it. You seem to have no idea on how experimental proof of an idea or method is reached. You don't just count the people that are prepared to buy your product. And if we took notice of Australian TV channels then 'Home and Away' and repeats of 'Neighbours' would flood our primetime TV.
And again, someone in this forum saying that your method works, that is, one of your predictions matched the actual weather, is not scientific evidence. Have you not heard of coincidence and blind luck? Please read up on the scientific method. It is not based on opinion.
Regarding climate change and skeptical scientists, as you've already said, government-paid scientists are 'frauds and liars' and that you 'try to deal in science, not made-up numbers' and that you 'only use raw data'. So are you telling us that you obtained your own raw data on climate change? Have you drilled out ice core samples from Greenland and analysed their gaseous composition, have you recorded temperatures and sea level rise worldwide, have you measured and analysed solar radiation, have you measured atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations worldwide and launched your own satellites to photograph changing ice coverage in the Arctic and Antarctic? Every argument I have seen you use has relied on data and analyses obtained by real scientists and simply repeats their conclusions. To claim that these scientists are coming to you for their data and quotes is extremely arrogant and patently false.
You claim that you do not believe 'in astrology, psychics and other nonsense', yet mention of them can be found in your public comments, especially astrology. You may not believe they are nonsense, but rational people do not write serious books on palmistry for cats and other ancient divination techniques.
I say we will let the public decide whose view is correct, yours or mine, and you reply, 'I think not.' So you're going to tell them what to believe? You then go on to say that I insist the public can't decide for themselves, when I clearly say they can. Perhaps what you misunderstand is that I believe the public needs to have information from both sides of a debate to make an informed decision. What you seemingly want is that the public only gets to hear your claims, and makes a decision from this and only this. Anyone that fears and tries to suppress opposing views, worried that their potential customers might decide the 'wrong' way, needs to improve their arguments.
It seems that like Leon, you also can't see that your long-range weather predictions and the debate over climate change are separate issues. Our essay looks at your weather prediction claims, not climate change. Don't change the subject. There are untold fortunes being spent on debating climate change, as you acknowledge, so an extra voice is hardly needed. However there are relatively few people debating your weather prediction method, so we are merely fulfilling a public need. I agree that you are just small fry on the scheme of things, but then so are those that you target, and so of course are we, so playing the sympathy card won't work. If I was to have sympathy for anyone, it would be for those three people that wasted good money on buying your book as a Xmas present.
"You say that government-paid scientists are 'frauds and liars', and yet you willing admit that you obtain old weather data including isobaric maps, rainfall levels, temperatures, frost reading etc that were collected by these 'frauds and liars' for use in your predictions. Do you not see a problem here?"
Sure, they have only become fraudulent latterly, to get the funding with the global warming gravy train. The data I use is from the 1930s onwards. They were reliable then and were responsible scientists. I have no problem with collecting that data. Nowadays the data is collected mechanically, but is not obtainable from some metservices who do not want the public to see that there has been no warming trend. Well, that is not science as I know it.
"have you forgotten that you wrote a book on palmistry for cats?"
No I haven't forgotten, it was about 15 years ago. You keep on and on about that, as if it was last week. Presumably because you have no other good argument. So what if I wrote that, which I did to make people aware of the pitfalls of New Age literature? Everyone treated the book in the spirit it was destined for. Only you have missed the point. I suppose you also think that cats can paint. I have never said that one can use the paws of a cat to predict the weather. That's your fantasy and it really is terribly funny and terribly sad for you.
"I said that you 'believe' in psychics, not that you are psychic. This is based on your comments about attending psychic readings".
Rubbish. I neither believe in psychics nor have attended psychic readings. There is a difference between psychic entertainment and psychic readings. One is a send-up of matters psychic but in a magical and semi-serious setting, which no one takes seriously, and the other is a ploy to get money from desperate and bereft people.
"You are claiming that every single object in the universe has an impact on your 'astrological energy grid' and can therefore affect the moon and our weather."
Oh dear. More rubbish. I never said anything of the sort nor do I believe it. At least if you are criticising my ideas please get correct what I claim. Every single object?? Ha ha.
"why do you keep trying to differentiate your astrology with 'Women's Weekly' astrology?"
The old tradition is not astronomy of today or I would use that expression. But the ancient astrology is the closest I can get to my idea of astrology. In the same way, medicine of today is not the medicine of yesteryear even though the word is common. But things change and evolve and move away whilst retaining the same word. It s the same differentiation.
"To claim that these scientists are coming to you for their data and quotes is extremely arrogant and patently false".
According to - whom? NIWA and NZ Metservice claim that no one can go more than a few days ahead in forecasting, let alone several months. That's what Jim Salinger said about me on the Sunday programme TV1 in October 2008. But they put out 3-month reports and longer, for instance in October what the cyclone season, November-April will bring. They did it on October 20, just after my almanac hit the shop shelves. Three months takes them to 20 January, not even halfway through the cyclone season. My access log is full of visitations from metnet and niwa.co.nz, regularly about every 7-10 days. Go figure.
"I say we will let the public decide whose view is correct, yours or mine, and you reply, 'I think not.' "
Yes, I meant that YOU are unwilling to let the public decide, because you have set yourself up as their adviser.
"Our essay looks at your weather prediction claims, not climate change. Don't change the subject".
I'm afraid the two are linked, despite your protestations about discussing it. If climate change was happening then my work would be increasingly incorrect. The fact that we are discussing it is because some have found that my method works for them and it seems you can't stand to hear that, because you have been self-nominated to speak for everybody, you, the guru of intellect and good science. You think that a silly belief is by definition anything you disagree with, which says more about your personality than science and has nothing to do with the work I am doing. If you were truly trying to help people then you would also recognise someone else who was trying to do likewise and encourage that, not try to bring them down because they are not operating within your narrow view of the world. I give away more forecasting than I get paid for. I donate books to events for raffles, columns to magazines free and I have set up my online transaction system to give part proceeds to the local surf patrol. You have said I am not wealthy. That is true, profit goes back to buying data for more research. If I sought wealth then longrange forecasting is the last thing I would consider devoting my time to.
"However there are relatively few people debating your weather prediction method, so we are merely fulfilling a public need".
No, we haven't even begun debating my methods, because you don't even recognise the old astrology for what it is and does. You can't see past cats paws, divination, predicting financial woes and tall dark strangers. All of your posts are about how silly people are for buying anything from me. You keep inventing different ways to warn them of catastrophe if they subscribe to my system and somehow you call that scientific debate.
Sorry Ken, but we don't buy this silly conspiracy theorist idea that all government-paid scientists have suddenly decided that getting their departmental bosses more money, and not them personally, is what now drives them, and not the quest for knowledge. That thousands of scientists are now happy to waste their days working on what they know is a lie. You seemingly aren't prepared to obediently follow the view of some foreign government, yet you claim to know that every government scientist, politician, plus government admin staff are all willing to live a lie, even thought they know that their silence will cost them and their children and grandchildren as taxpayers a fortune. No sane person wants global warming to be true, so no sane, ethical person would conspire to keep the secret of its falsehood when they personally had nothing to gain and much to lose. Any scientist able to prove that global warming was a fraud would win the Nobel Prize, wealth and a place in history, likewise any employee that exposed the conspiracy would gain instant fame and wealth. Your belief that your morals soar above these immoral, corrupt, fraudulent, lying scientists and all their support staff is a fantasy.
Regarding your book on palmistry for cats, it appears that you are indeed now trying to distance yourself from it, claiming that it was all just a joke on silly New Age believers, and that they were happy with you making fun of their beliefs. I also clearly said that I don't believe that you use cats to predict the weather. Believing that I did is in fact your fantasy. I mention your book to highlight to other readers your claimed belief in such silly things as numerology, astrology, graphology, phrenology and psychic influences. You now say you don't believe in these things and people shouldn't have taken you seriously. In a few years are you going to say the same thing about your weather prediction books?
Psychic entertainment? There is no such thing. You are perhaps confusing the tricks stage magicians perform with psychics. If psychics are involved then so are psychic readings, whether you pay for them or not. People watch magicians to be entertained, they listen to psychics to be informed. You said that you discovered palmistry for cats at a psychic party and in your subsequent book you claimed to explore psychic influences. Are these more lies just to sell books?
Regarding my suggestion that every object in the universe affects the weather, this is based on your astrological ideas. You have claimed that 'The moon ... is also tethered to constellations' and that 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations'. Your hero Sir Isaac Newton, who you said 'wrote his Principiia about gravitation in astrological physics', also said that every material object in the universe affects every other object through gravitation. So why do you believe that distant stars in a completely arbitrary constellation can affect the weather, but other stars can't, even stars that might be much closer? So who is right, you or Sir Isaac Newton? Do you have a list of which stars and constellations are playing around with our moon and hence our weather, and those which are ignoring us completely?
What an utterly bogus and confused argument is your analogy on astrology and medicine. You say that medicine has changed and evolved over the centuries but we still call it medicine, and yet you also say that astrology has changed and evolved so much that we now call it astronomy instead. This isn't an analogy, it's the complete opposite. You claim that 'ancient astrology is the closest I can get to my idea of astrology', and yet ancient astrology is exactly what we see in the 'Women's Weekly'. In a previous comment you stated that 'My predictions are based on ... pure astronomy', and yet you now contradict yourself by asserting that you use ancient astrology which is not the same as astronomy of today. All you want to do is fool the general public into believing that the superstitious nonsense you call ancient astrology is just modern astronomy by another name. It's like a healer claiming that saying a prayer over a patient is just the same as giving antibiotics.
I stated that regarding the climate change debate, you are simply parroting the doubts of skeptical scientists rather than providing the raw data, research and scientific analyses yourself, and yet you replied: 'I don't think so. I have been writing on the nonsense of global warming since ... 1996. Rather, it is more that they have been quoting me.' My response was that to claim that scientists were coming to you for their data and quotes is extremely arrogant and patently false. I stand by that comment, and wonder why you aren't taking these scientists to court for stealing your ideas and data, since none seem to mention you as their source.
Regarding your prediction methods, we are perfectly happy to let the public decide once they have been made fully aware of both sides of the debate. That is the only way you can make an informed decision, otherwise it is just a random stab in the dark. And the definition of an adviser as you call us, is one who offers advice, not one who dictates. Our website is the only avenue we use to inform the public of our views. Unlike you we do not travel the country and the world, speaking on TV and radio, writing articles for magazines and speaking to various groups all with the intent of swaying their view of your methods. It seems that on the scale of things, it is you that are unwilling to let the public decide on their own.
I agree that weather prediction and climate change are linked, just as cancer and life insurance are linked, but biomedical scientists usually limit their research to the physiology of cancer, even though cancer impacts on life expectancies and insurance premiums. Likewise we wish to limit our critique to your weather prediction claims, which stand on their own. You and others however wish to set your weather prediction claims aside and discuss climate change instead. Yes the climate change debate is important, as is debate about genetic engineering, euthanasia and the Maori flag, but there is a time and place for each debate. We are challenging your weather prediction method, and regardless of whether you think climate change is more important, that is what we intend to stick to. When and if we create a page looking at your climate change views, we will let you know.
Regarding our website, you write that 'You think that a silly belief is by definition anything you disagree with'. You just made that up didn't you, to make us sound arrogant and authoritarian? Nowhere do we make or imply such a claim. We would actually say that a silly belief is one for which there is no good evidence, and often much contrary evidence. Especially a belief based on superstition and supposedly explained by recourse to the supernatural, paranormal and/or pseudoscience. Examples would be gods, ghosts, psychics, alien abductions and astrology.
You go on to accuse us of being 'self-nominated to speak for everybody, you, the guru of intellect and good science', but this is simply your annoyed view of us. We speak for no one but ourselves, and are certainly not gurus, although we would like to think we reflect good science. We have simply decided to speak out on certain topics that we believe the public are being mislead on, hoodwinked into trusting certain authorities seduced by power, greed and/or their own selfish interests, or by following others, that whilst often working with the best of intentions, are led by ignorance. When we speak out against something we see as wrong, you insult us and tell us to desist. Yet when you speak out against something you see as wrong, you see yourself as 'truly trying to help people', as doing the noble thing. Whether climate change is real or not, the majority of supporters are trying to do the right thing, and yet you are trying to 'bring them down because they are not operating within your narrow view of the world'. You are doing exactly what you accuse us of. You're little different than the Catholic Church of the inquisitions. Support their beliefs and you'll be fondled lovingly by priests, but criticise them and you'll receive a visit from inquisitors carrying hot pokers. Like you, they felt it just and right that they should spread their views around the world, and also like you, they felt opposing views must be silenced.
You say that there is no debate since we 'don't even recognise the old astrology for what it is and does.' Of course we recognise 'old astrology' for exactly what it is, and the fact that we are revealing this inconvenient truth to the public greatly annoys you. You simply continue to muddy the waters by claiming that your old astrology is 'pure astronomy' but not to be confused with modern astronomy, it's astrology but not to be confused with modern astrology, it's ancient astrology but shouldn't be confused with the original astrology that gave us modern astrology. I've already asked you to define exactly what you understand astrology to mean, how it differs from astronomy and science in general and how and why it differs from that pushed by your brethren in the Woman's Weekly. You have ignored this request for an explanation, and without it we can only understand astrology based on the views of academics and from what we can glean from your vague statements. If we truly don't understand your old or ancient astrology, then you only have yourself to blame. Also what a joke it is to mention a 'belief in astrology' and 'scientific debate' in the same paragraph. That's a little like the moron I once encountered who called himself a Christian atheist.
And what are you talking about when you say we are warning your potential clients of catastrophe if they believe in you? Do you make these things up yourself or have you got a malfunctioning toaster helping you? The worse thing that could happen is that they will be reducing their bank balance with nothing of value to show for it.
"Any scientist able to prove that global warming was a fraud would win the Nobel Prize.".
Quite the opposite actually, the Nobel Prize industry is about politics, mostly European and UN. Why else would Yasser Arafat, the worst terrorist in history get it, Henry Kissinger the arms dealer, Al Gore the biggest liar, and Barrack Obama, who not only hasn't done anything but was nominated for it even before he was elected?
"Regarding your book on palmistry for cats, it appears that you are indeed now trying to distance yourself from it, claiming that it was all just a joke on silly New Age believers".
I never said that. The reason for writing it was outlined at the time. But if, as you claim, it was a joke on New Age believers, isn't that par for your course?
"Psychic entertainment? There is no such thing".
You are out of touch with what you criticise so unkindly. Psychic entertainers such as Uri Geller, Kweskin, Doc Hilford and James Randi are legendary in the international entertainment world. You deny their very existence?
"You said that you discovered palmistry for cats at a psychic party and in your subsequent book you claimed to explore psychic influences".
None of that is true, sorry.
"Regarding my suggestion that every object in the universe affects the weather, this is based on your astrological ideas".
It can't be, it's not what I believe.
"Your hero Sir Isaac Newton, who you said 'wrote his Principiia about gravitation in astrological physics', also said that every material object in the universe affects every other object through gravitation".
Perhaps, I wouldn't know, you'd have to ask him what he meant.
"So why do you believe that distant stars in a completely arbitrary constellation can affect the weather, but other stars can't, even stars that might be much closer?"
How many times do I have to repeat this? I don't believe that. It's not what astrology is about and it is simply rubbish.
"You also say that astrology has changed and evolved so much that we now call it astronomy instead".
That's essentially correct.
"You claim that 'ancient astrology is the closest I can get to my idea of astrology',"
That's also correct.
"..and yet ancient astrology is exactly what we see in the 'Women's Weekly'."
No, you couldn't be more wrong. You need to study the subject, more than at a knee-jerk level.
"In a previous comment you stated that 'My predictions are based on ... pure astronomy',"
That's correct.
"..and yet you now contradict yourself by asserting that you use ancient astrology which is not the same as astronomy of today."
Yes, you seem to have a cognitive block understanding this difference.
"All you want to do is fool the general public into believing that the superstitious nonsense you call ancient astrology is just modern astronomy by another name".
I am not trying to fool anyone, but you are doing a pretty good job of trying to redefine astrology to suit your own narrow viewpoint. It's a fact that ancient astrology became astronomy. You are still doing your best to deny that ancient astrology is different to that carrying the name today. Look up the history of astronomy if you don't believe me.
"Regarding our website, you write that 'You think that a silly belief is by definition anything you disagree with'. You just made that up didn't you, to make us sound arrogant and authoritarian?"
Well, you do that entirely unassisted.
"We would actually say that a silly belief is .based on superstition and supposedly explained by recourse to the supernatural, paranormal and/or pseudoscience. Examples would be gods, ghosts, psychics, alien abductions and astrology".
All of those examples, as practised nowadays, may fall into the realm of belief systems. I have no experience of any of them, but would not deny anyone their belief it was their preference. I would certainly not call the belief of another, 'silly' , because the act of saying so would itself be a belief, and a silly one. I would not be that arrogant. It is one thing to call for evidence, but quite another to scorn someone who has a different idea about the world. In fact faith in science is also a belief.
"we would like to think we reflect good science".
Your idea of good science is what? Practised by whom, for example, in the current meteorological world?
"We have simply decided to speak out on certain topics that we believe the public are being mislead on, hoodwinked into trusting certain authorities seduced by power, greed and/or their own selfish interests, or by following others, that whilst often working with the best of intentions, are led by ignorance".
Aha, you must be talking about the now well-documented ClimateGate, Al Gore, Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones and his fellow climate change frauds, who comprise those scientists named in the leaked emails, like members of NIWA. Well, let's hear you speak out about it then.
"You're little different than the Catholic Church of the inquisitions. Support their beliefs and you'll be fondled lovingly by priests, but criticise them and you'll receive a visit from inquisitors carrying hot pokers. Like you, they felt it just and right that they should spread their views around the world, and also like you, they felt opposing views must be silenced".
Strange comment. Remember, I don't have a website thread about you, with your name to it, so who is being inquistorial?
"I've already asked you to define exactly what you understand astrology to mean, how it differs from astronomy and science in general and how and why it differs from that pushed by your brethren in the Woman's Weekly".
Just forget the word astrology, it is clearly too confusing for you. You seem to have no idea of what it entails. Even to an old-style astrologer, it is about 90% trigonometry. Just accept that is not what you think it is and criticise it for being.
"..have you got a malfunctioning toaster?"
Yes, I do. That's incredible, you must be psychic.
Ken, regarding the Nobel prize, is there nothing major happening in the world today that doesn't involve some sort of conspiracy in your view?
Also I didn't claim your palmistry for cats book was a joke on New Agers, I said that this is what you appeared to now imply. You say you don't believe in palmistry and yet you still wrote an apparently serious book on the subject, and it is still being marketed as a serious book on New Age Web sites. You say your reason for writing it was outlined at the time, but to whom, just the publisher? I note that you still don't wish to reveal that reason to your public. You also deny you discovered palmistry for cats at a psychic party, yet this 'fact' was used to market your book which claimed to 'explore psychic influences'. These may have been a lies invented by your publisher, and maybe you didn't know, but you should have known. Ignorance is no excuse.
Yes, I do deny the existence of 'psychic entertainers' in the sense that you are implying. James Randi is a magician and Kweskin and Hilford are mentalists, none claim to be psychic. They openly admit that everything they do in their shows is a trick. These people are not entertaining by demonstrating psychic powers, but with magic tricks that merely give the appearance of psychic powers. There is a difference Ken. You refer to them as 'psychic' entertainers as if they have real psychic powers. Uri Geller on the other hand used to claim he had psychic powers, but he is a fraud. While he hasn't admitted this, he no longer claims to have psychic powers.
You've gone on about your 'astrologer' hero Isaac Newton and his work on gravity in 'astrological physics', implying that it was his work that was guiding your method, now you admit you know less about gravity than does a high school student. Regarding whether every object attracts every other object you express doubt and reply, 'Perhaps, I wouldn't know'. Have you not heard of his famous law of universal gravitation?
You claim that the belief that constellations (which are just a random group of stars) can affect the weather is just rubbish. And yet it is you that said 'The moon answers to the sun but is also tethered to constellations' ... 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' and 'Cancer typically brings downpours [and] the Moon will be in Pisces, a wet sign'. I agree it is just rubbish, so are you now disowning your own claims? If the effect of constellations on the weather is just rubbish, then what the hell are you talking about? Is this just New Age mumbo-jumbo to soothe your readers who are intimidated by science?
You go on to state that 'It's a fact that ancient astrology became astronomy. You are still doing your best to deny that ancient astrology is different to that carrying the name today.' No Ken, ancient astrology did not become astronomy. What became astronomy were merely elements of ancient astrology, observations of celestial cycles which were used in navigation and timekeeping. The core belief that celestial bodies have an influence on nature and human affairs remained in astrology and continues to define astrology, both ancient and modern. This is why we still have both astrology and astronomy today, because rational, intelligent and scientific people realised astronomy had to divorce itself from its superstitious parent to make any progress. Everything that ancient priests and astrologers discovered about the cosmos that was true is now incorporated in astronomy. Everything that they claimed that is now known to be superstitious nonsense remains as astrology. If it is true then it is found in astronomy, if it is only found in ancient astrology, then astronomy has rejected it as false. If you claim that we must apply some knowledge claim found only in ancient astrology, then you are resorting to falsehoods. You claim that 'ancient astrology is the closest I can get to my idea of astrology', and also confusingly that 'My predictions are based on ... pure astronomy'. If your method is explained by modern astronomy without recourse to ancient astrology, then why, why, why do you keep mentioning ancient astrology? Only a fool would believe that people could take separate academic courses on ancient astrology and modern astronomy and both would learn the same things. You repeatedly refuse to explain what you understand astrology to mean, even though you claim that I have no idea what it entails. Since you won't tell us we can only go by what academics such as scientists and historians tell us and by how astrologers describe their field. Seemingly none of these people know what your version of astrology is either. For you to dismiss the discussion of astrology by simply saying 'Just accept that is not what you think it is and criticise it for being', is typical of someone trying to defend a pseudoscience.
You keep telling us that, 'no, that's not what I believe'. This is a typical ploy of pseudoscience and scams, refusing to clearly say what you do believe beyond vague, ambiguous statements couched in terms that only you understand, such as 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations'. Why don't you come clean and tell us all exactly what you do believe. And don't just say 'read my books'. I've read your books and articles and that's where I got all your vague quotes from. You will never convince us that your weather prediction method is based on good science — that which follows the scientific method and stands the test of time — unless you explain what this ancient astrology is that you claim to rely on. And it seems you can't, or are not prepared, to offer that clear explanation.
As for the definition of what a 'silly belief' is, regardless of what you think of us, you can't fairly win debates by inventing fictitious definitions and falsely attributing them to your opponent. This is called lying Ken.
Furthermore, in your attempt to criticise our definition of a silly belief, you quote us with the crucial piece about evidence deleted, and focus solely on our examples. Like you, we also would not deny anyone their beliefs, nor could we even if we wished to. However we, like all normal people, do reserve the freedom to judge different beliefs, to separate the good from the bad, the plausible from the impossible, the reasonable from the silly. You say that you would never be so arrogant as to describe someone's belief as 'silly'. I find your claim quite hypocritical and deceptive. We employ the phrase 'Silly Beliefs' as per the dictionary definition: Silly: Exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish, fatuous, absurd, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous. In your last reply alone you implied we were arrogant and authoritarian, described a belief of ours as 'simply rubbish' and our understanding as 'confused' and at 'knee-jerk level'. You call climate scientists, politicians and others 'frauds and liars' and I suspect you would call their beliefs 'so devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable'. And you seriously want us to believe that you would never put a label like 'silly' on someone else's belief? Bullshit Ken! Look in the mirror.
Just one thing, you mention Mr Ring failed to predict the Dec 2004 Asian Tsunami.
Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, or by impacts, not weather, i would recommend taking that off, kinda makes you sound stupid.
Actually Paul it makes Ken Ring sound stupid. I guess you aren't aware that Ring believes that not only can his method predict the weather, it can also predict earthquakes. Every month his online ezine has (or had) a section on the likelihood of earthquakes as well as rain and drizzle. After the 2004 Asian Tsunami Ring was arrogant and deceptive enough to go on the Internet and claim that he had predicted it.
Posted by: Ken Ring 31 May 2005, 01:10 AM
We provide more detail on his deception here: NZ's Moonman predicts Asian Tsunami. Exactly.
It seems quite incredible that I tell you what I think and then you inform me that that's not what I think, and that what I think is wrong based on what you think I think. I tried to tell you how my work links back to the original practitioners of astrology only to be told by you that it is not astrology but something else, based on what you read in the Women's Weekly. I don't know anything about psychic parties, yet you tell me I used to frequent them. I tell you about psychic entertainers, most of whom in this country belong to the magic fraternity and are known to me, from the days that I was a professional magician, and yet you try to tell me they don't exist. Psychic entertainers never do claim psychic powers, and I have never said that I believe in psychic powers, as I have had no experience of them. It even befell me several years ago to spend a day hosting James Randi and driving him around the city, and I share his views on the subject.
What you say about astrology bears very little resemblance to what an astrologer understands. There is no influence of constellations, rather the signs are only functional positions on the ecliptic. In the past these were given fancy names, because that was what people did back then, but there is a world of difference between a position exerting an influence due to its angle of application and imagining that a bunch of rocks millions of miles away can of themselves exert some power. For instance, the sun is overhead in our summer months, and in the position, or sign, of Capricorn. All of that is saying is that Capricorn means overhead. The winter sun is on the horizon in our winter months, and in the position of Cancer. All Cancer means is the horizon's position, which delivers less gravitational impact. The full moon on the other hand, is in Capricorn (overhead) when in our winter, where the summer sun occupies position, whereas the summer full moon is in Cancer, where our winter sun sits. For that reason, the fact that it is directly overhead in our hemisphere means that the full moon, due to its gravitational tidal influence is more destructive in the winter, whereas new moons are more destructive in summer time. Linking it to ocean tides is a concrete example. Perigeal full moons or new moons bring the highest tides, and pergieal full moons will be from now to April, whereas perigeal new moons will be from April to November. The highest tides of the months will be on those moon-dates. If you don't believe this go down to the beach and see for yourself. All this has nothing whatever to do with people being born when this or that is rising, meeting tall dark strangers or being a good time for romance.
That you try to link my work to that coffee table chitchat is a desperate attempt on your part to ridicule me and my work. You keep claiming that rational, intelligent and scientific people are the set that you belong to, which apparently includes people only of your belief system. Anything else is a 'silly belief' by your definition. You seem to have erected in your mind a vision of me that delights you to argue against. You keep reinventing this fictitious opponent in every posted reply. In response I keep endeavoring to point out that your image is entirely your fiction and that most of what you say I believe is incorrect. You never do seem to hear that message because in the next post you are again telling me what it is that I think and what I am supposed to believe. I'm sure if I did not respond, you would write a response anyway and subsequently write a damning reply to it.
Yes Ken, we understand that you believe your work links to ancient astrology, but apart from repeating that, you won't tell us exactly what ancient astrology is. We consult encyclopaedias, dictionaries, academics and modern day astrologers for definitions and you claim they are all wrong. And since you won't enlighten us beyond vague statements such as, 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations', then our problems with your method remain and we will continue to highlight the connection we see between ancient and modern astrology.
Clearly highlighting the vast difference in understanding between you and academics, modern astrologers and the layperson, you claim that 'What you say about astrology bears very little resemblance to what an astrologer understands. There is no influence of constellations, rather the signs are only functional positions on the ecliptic … For instance, the sun is overhead in our summer months, and in the position, or sign, of Capricorn. All of that is saying is that Capricorn means overhead.' You now appear to be saying that you only make reference to the constellations as a way of indicating the specific time of year. When you say Capricorn you mean summer and Cancer means winter. But this is bogus for a number of reasons. For one, you say that your main clients are farmers and fishermen, and yet no farmer or fisherman (or anyone actually) that I know ever divides the year into signs of the zodiac. No farmer says, 'Capricorn is approaching, I better organise the haymaking.' Referring to a time of year by its zodiac sign would be completely meaningless to most everyone, not just farmers and fishermen. We have internationally accepted and recognised terms for the months of the year and the seasons. If you mean summer then say summer is approaching, not that Capricorn is rising. Two, the sun is not in Capricorn during our 'summer months'. As any horoscope reader knows, zodiac signs only cover approximately one month, not an entire season. Astrologically Capricorn only extends from December 22 to January 19. We normally hope for a longer summer than that. Three, in reality Capricorn doesn't extend from December 22 to January 19 at all. As you know Ken, the entire band of zodiac constellations or star signs has rotated over the years and every single star sign is now one entire position different to the dates published in horoscopes. If you think you are a Capricorn, you were actually born under the sign of Sagittarius. Everyone's star sign is actually the previous one and everyone has been reading the wrong horoscope their entire lives. This apparent movement of the zodiac is called the precession of the equinoxes, and while most professional astrologers are probably aware of this serious glitch in their calculations, almost all of them ignore it and continue to publish the utterly bogus dates on the star signs. So even the odd farmer who says 'Well, I know when Capricorn is because my wife is a Capricorn', even they are mistaken and will be a month out. Capricorn is now approximately Jan 20 to Feb 18.
So Ken, even if you are just being mysterious and difficult by using an obsolete and arcane method of describing the months and seasons of the year, these star signs are completely unfamiliar to your clients and are now so far out as to be completely misleading if used in any calculations.
Also the following throws doubt on your claimed separation from modern astrology. When I said that it is claimed that you discovered palmistry for cats at a psychic party and in your book you claimed to explore psychic influences, you replied 'None of that is true, sorry' and 'I don't know anything about psychic parties'. When I stated that your belief in astrology, psychics and other nonsense reduces your credibility, you replied: 'your made-up stuff again, not my beliefs'. And when I mentioned astrology to you as one of several examples of pseudoscience and superstition, you again asserted: 'I have no experience of any of them'. I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps some Internet bookseller was making unwarranted claims in hyping your book. However I have now viewed your actual book, and this is what it says on the rear cover:
Authors Ken Ring and Paul Romhany apply age old tools of divination to teach you what kind of cat owner you are, based on your astrological sign, and what kind of cat you have, based on its sign ...
Ken Ring is a mathematician and a long-time magician, mind reader, and public speaker with a passion for the ancient discipline of palmistry. Ken stumbled upon his peculiar calling at a psychic party several years ago ...
So clearly you are lying Ken. Either to your readers about your discovering palmistry for cats at a psychic party and your sincere belief in divination techniques such as numerology and astrology, or you are lying to me in an attempt to hide your belief in superstitious nonsense from those that might buy your weather forecasting books. Either way you are lying to one group of potential clients in order to sell your books, probably both.
And you do yourself no favours by uttering scientifically illiterate statements like this: 'There is no influence of constellations … imagining that a bunch of rocks millions of miles away can of themselves exert some power.' One, the stars that make up constellations are not 'a bunch of rocks', but huge balls of burning gas. Two, they are not merely millions of miles away. The very closest is trillions of miles away. Millions of miles would put them closer to us than our own Sun. Three, there is a force that they exert that reaches us. It's called gravity. Your claimed study of Newton's 'astrological physics' should have told you this. Silly statements like this almost convince me that you might be sincere, that you really are following the mistaken beliefs of some ancient astrologer. It also makes me wonder who wrote the astronomy content in your books, since it obviously wasn't you.
I notice you once again invent a fictitious definition of 'silly belief' and falsely attribute it to us, that any belief that our 'set of people' don't agree with is silly. I'll say again, this is lying Ken. We told you what we view as a 'silly belief'. Whether you agree with this definition or not, don't lie and claim we said something else.
However that falsehood pales in comparison to the libellous, disgraceful and dishonest accusation that you finished your reply with. To say that if you didn't respond to our comments we would fabricate a silly reply and put your name to it is highly offensive. You know full well that we have published every single word that you have submitted and have not edited your comments in anyway whatsoever. And you know we can prove this to others if need be. You falsely accused us earlier of picking on you personally, and yet now you side step our criticisms and attack our integrity. Is this defamation an attempt to get yourself banned from our forum so that you can cry to others that we prevented you airing your arguments? Or is it so that any real future reply of yours that we might criticise, you can now comment on other forums, 'I told you they would make up lies and put my name to it'.
You have placed us in a very awkward position, almost forcing us to delete any further responses from you lest some readers accuse us of fabricating any ridiculous statement you might truly make, as you claim we will. If we do publish your future comments, your supporters will attribute silly comments under your name to us. If we don't publish them then you will say we banned you to censor your views.
Whether you choose to make further comments on this forum or not Ken, because of your accusation you have sown the seed of doubt, and any comment under your name loses any credibility, thanks to your own deviousness. Did you write it or didn't you? The fact that you have pulled this despicable stunt further confirms that you are a scheming scam artist desperate to hide the truth from your clients. Up until now we have honestly said that we are not commenting on you personally, we are merely criticising some of your beliefs. However we would now add that we find your ethics less than honourable.
The trouble is though, if you don't respond Ken, and no reply appears on this forum, then readers will know that your accusation was libellous. Or will you not reply but say on other forums that you did and we must have deleted your comments? But if a reply does appear, no one will know if it really is you. If you say something silly, which is likely, then your supporters will assume it is a fabrication. If you say something enlightening that we agree with, then based on your previous comments people will again assume it is a fabrication. It seems you can't win Ken. You have effectively destroyed your credibility and your chance of explaining your views on this forum. But fear not, we will continue to host our article and explain your methods as best we can. We have even recently discovered more 'Ringisms' on the Internet which we will be incorporating into our article, like your explanation of what it takes to be a scientist, and how people belonging to the cult of Scientology and Christians belonging to the church of Christian Science are all scientists. The fact that you say these things to support your claims is astounding, and the fact that your supporters believe them depressing.
I have honestly never in my life read such hysterical ranting, all in the name of feeling threatened, with what? My alternative viewpoint? Jeez man, your inquistional fantasies are running mad. You have caught yourself in a web of your own making, like a spider trapped in his own gluey footprint.
This is the history as I see it. You became aware of my work and because it was so new to your ears and outside of mainstream science your gut reaction seems to have been that it must be fraudulent. So to inform an anxious awaiting world you set up a page entitled with my name, dedicated to taking me down, dissecting me piece by piece, in the most slanderous manner possible, with my name and business on the line, protected by the anonymity of your name and the ill-defined legal guidelines of the internet. You tried every way you could to convince your readers that I was a complete scam-mongering charlatan, only intent on scalping innocent people by tricking them into believing that I had a weather prediction system, when all along according to you I was only in it for the money. To justify your claims you invented a description of me that suited your arguments, that I was an astrologer, a mystical reader of tea leaves, a layer-on of hands, a soothsayer, snake-oil shaman, one step away from a witch, speaking with forked tongues whilst trying to remain aloof and mysterious, unapproachable and confusing to anybody who sought an explanation of my methods. If I was just a normal person, floating a different method, it wouldn't have been half as glamorous or salacious.
It worked for a while until I decided to start sending in posts, mainly because I was laughing so hard I was making myself ill. I claimed I was none of all of that invented description, and that everything I did was science-backed, me being university trained. Of course that all fell on deaf ears, because this is essentially a character-assassination forum called silly beliefs, and new evidence has to be found in every reply you make that my work continues to justify your labelling. That is what I meant when I said if I did not respond you would probably write a response anyway, as you have already done when you have dug out things I was supposed to have said in the past in reply to questions you have posed in the present. For instance you found jacket notes (not penned by me) in a book I wrote over 10 years ago essentially for skeptics, which you have used as your supposed answers from me, disregarding my actual answers. You call that debate? I keep telling you what my take is on the astrology and you tell me it is some other thing, because you choose not to hear what I'm saying. I notice you have done the same thing to Ian Wishart. You seem not to have the faintest idea what he actually believes, but you have treated him the same as me, painting him in a certain light and then attacking your own image of it. Not once do you understand that it is actually your own construct that is under attack. Not once do you stop and ponder that the whole problem may lie with you and the way you view people you disagree with.
I repeat, for maybe the 5th or 6th time, god knows I've lost count now, I have never been to a psychic party (I don't even know what that is), have never believed in nor practised divination techniques such as numerology or astrology, nor, as you put it (and I would somewhat agree with the label), "superstitious nonsense." You really do enjoy this vision of me as a spooky seance-type medium. I suppose my card-carrying membership of both the Rationalists Association and the Skeptics Society (even have been keynote speaker at not one, but two, of the latter's past conferences) means nothing to your warped view of what you think I am or how I think. In your mind I am the horned devil himself, intent on perverting all intelligent thinkers with my fanatic New Age weirdness. You really didn't even remotely get the Pawmistry joke, and every time you bring the subject up the joke is squarely on you and your humourless world view. Ever heard of satire? The very reason that I agreed to write (only half of) it was to suggest something about New Age literature. Just about everyone else got the point. Britain's Mail-On-Sunday newspaper, readership 4 million, serialised it. Kim Hill played along beautifully at the time when she interviewed me, as well as the many other radio and TV hosts. They all saw what I was doing because they were normal people, not fearful of a new idea and not threatened by it into writing or broadcasting screaming denigrations. Everyone had a good time and a good belly-laugh. Are you just jealous of new ventures, so are intent on tearing them down? Did other kids have more interesting toys than you, so you felt the need to vandalise them? Because that is exactly what you are doing with this forum. The targets of your misery do not put up Silly-Beliefs-of-John-Ateo websites, have you noticed that?
You also refuse to listen to what I said about my form of astrology, again for the nth time. It is extremely tiresome, like trying to explain something to a very very small child. Again (and again and again) it is not about horoscopes. I don't even know why I am bothering - you will still say that it is. Constellations are not about the time of the year, you are confusing this with seasons. Constellations are about grid points on the ecliptic. They have no power of themselves, but the grid points have power because declination brings gravitational positioning. It is just such positioning of the Sun that causes the seasons. But the positioning of other extraterrestrials like the moon and planets on the ecliptic "in" these same constellations have nothing whatever to do with time of the year. It is pure astronomy, but it seems you don't know anything about it because the Womens Weekly that you use as your oracle for astro-matters doesn't go into it. If you do desire to understand, may I recommend that you read this article https://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=165 which sets it all out. I'm afraid the Sun is in Capricorn during part of our summer, it just happens to be a fact.
Towards the end of your diatribe you say I attack your integrity, and that is defamatory. But a bully has no integrity and only a bully puts up a website called Silly Beliefs. Then you say my ethics are less than honorable, inferring that yours are squeaky clean. So remind me again where is the website put up by me that personally defames your business? You say you are not commenting on me personally, merely criticizing some of my beliefs. Even if that was true, and anybody with half a brain can work out that you are targeting me personally, for decency's sake why? What gives you or anybody the right to comment on my beliefs? They are my own in a free society and I am entitled to them without public chastisement. People are not forced at gunpoint to buy my books or read my website. They do not need to be told which beliefs are good ones and which ones are silly. What one person might call superstitious nonsense, another might take seriously, for a variety of reasons, all perfectly valid for the person concerned. Historically, people who have taken a judgment stance on beliefs have brought huge and lasting shame on the human race. They have been responsible for the most heinous and appalling crimes in history: genocides, holocausts, ethnic cleansing, inquisitions, and persecutions. They have operated under names like The Inquisitors, the Crusaders, the Nazis, Stalinists and other hit squads. And their causes have all started with public pronouncements of what their leaderships demanded that their populations believe. I think your last sentence says it all: "the fact that your supporters believe them (my claims) (is) depressing". Yes, I can see how that must make you feel. What pesky rotters disobeying your website telling us what to think.
Readers will need to make up their owns minds as to whether the previous post is really from Ken Ring or a fabrication by us at Silly Beliefs, as he implied it would or could be. We agree it is vindictive and silly enough to be from Ken, but perhaps it is just a little too silly? You decide.
Ken, you believe we feel threatened, but what might we have to feel threatened about? That your business might suffer or that you might be exposed as a fraud? Do you think we lie awake at night worrying about that?
You claim that we challenge your method simply because our 'gut reaction seems to have been that it must be fraudulent'. Rubbish Ken. We have a detailed article explaining why we doubt your method, and it has nothing to do with chemical reactions in our intestines. Perhaps you should read it. You claim that our article is slanderous, which means 'communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation'. You claim that we 'have dug out things I was supposed to have said in the past', implying that we have lied, and yet you know that every quote attributed to you was actually made by you, either in your books or Web site articles or in the media and on Internet forums. All these quotes can be verified as coming from you, they are not false and therefore not slanderous. However you do make libellous comments in your response, going on to say that 'you invented a description of me … that I was an astrologer, a mystical reader of tea leaves, a layer-on of hands, a soothsayer, snake-oil shaman, one step away from a witch, speaking with forked tongues whilst trying to remain aloof and mysterious, unapproachable and confusing to anybody who sought an explanation of my methods'. Apart from connecting you to astrology, you know the rest are lies. Please point to where we described you as 'a mystical reader of tea leaves, a layer-on of hands, a soothsayer' etc. You then say 'If I was just a normal person', floating a different method, it [our challenge] wouldn't have been half as glamorous or salacious.' Are you saying you're not normal? And do you not know that 'salacious' means 'appealing to or stimulating sexual desire'? Do you really believe we find you sexy and that publicly calling you an astrologer turns us on? It is these silly and blatantly false comments of yours Ken that made us doubt you in the first place.
You then claimed that our challenge of you 'worked for a while until I decided to start sending in posts'. How have your posts affected our challenge? We believe we have shown you to be as evasive as ever about your 'astrological methods', your knowledge of science hasn't improved, and we have even added new material to our article following your comments. Your posts are merely amusing and motivating us. You're like the Catholic Church, you just don't know when it makes more sense to keep quiet.
Defending your method you claim that 'everything I did was science-backed, me being university trained'. If you had fully read our article you would know that we have already debunked your 'me being university trained' claim. But for the benefit of new readers pray tell us all what scientific degrees you possess in the appropriate fields, such as astrophysics, climate science, meteorology or even simply physics. Or what university degrees do you possess in any discipline, even non-science ones? You are on record as stating that your method is not taught at any university, and yet we all know science is. You back astrology and universities back astronomy. You can not claim your method is science-backed when science tossed it out with the rubbish centuries ago.
When I said, "Regarding your book on palmistry for cats, it appears that you are indeed now trying to distance yourself from it, claiming that it was all just a joke on silly New Age believers", you replied indignantly:
As for your mate Ian Wishart, you're right, I may not know what he actually believes, but I can challenge what he says. If that's not what he believes then he needs to improve his communication skills. And it's the same with you and astrology. You need to improve your communication skills. You can't say of your method that, 'everything I did was science-backed, me being university trained … [and] It is pure astronomy', and then say that I don't understand your 'form of astrology'. Which is it?
Then confusingly you say, 'I repeat, for maybe the 5th or 6th time, god knows I've lost count now, I have … never believed in nor practised divination techniques such as numerology or astrology'
And yet you have said on your Web site:
You lament that, 'You also refuse to listen to what I said about my form of astrology … It is pure astronomy'. If it's pure astronomy then why do you keep talking about astrology. This is what I can't grasp and you can't explain. If 'pure astronomy' can't describe and explain everything that you do, and you say it can't because you need to use your form of astrology, then you can't claim that your method is 'pure astronomy' and science backed. Astronomy has well accepted and understood terms that describe the seasons and where objects are in the sky. When they want to say the Sun has reached its highest position in the sky, they say zenith, they don't say Capricorn. They don't say as you do, 'The Moon (rising) is in Cancer and at 12th House', or 'The accepted "normal" way of viewing the constellations with respect to the order of their names is from above the north pole [because] All the horoscope wheels are that way around'. Your claim that astrology is not about horoscopes, and that zodiac constellations are not about a particular time of the year, would be denied by most everyone. If your version of astrology is not about these things, then you really do need to stop using the term astrology and call it something completely different, such as 'Ringology'. Every time some one challenges you over your method they almost always query your use of the pseudoscience astrology, and you get into heated debate stating that you don't use or believe in astrology, you actually use and believe in a 'form' of astrology. And you wonder why people are confused. Don't blame the students for not understanding Ken, blame the teacher for refusing to deviate from a failed lesson plan.
As for your membership of both the Rationalists Association and the Skeptics Society, that just demonstrates that they really do need to vet requests for membership. And how does your mate Ian, the fundamentalist Christian, feel about you belonging to the Rationalists Association, aka the 'Atheists Association'? I guess the climate change debate produces strange bedfellows.
You ask, almost tearfully it seems, 'you are targeting me personally, for decency's sake why? What gives you or anybody the right to comment on my beliefs? They are my own in a free society and I am entitled to them without public chastisement.' That's rich Ken, this from the person that has almost made a career out of criticising the beliefs of climate change proponents and calling academics 'liars and frauds'. And let's remember that it was you commenting on a 'letter to the editor' by us, and sending a copy to your publisher as well, that started this whole debate. You want the right to express your views but deny the same rights to others. As you say Ken, this is a free society and you actually have no right to limit free speech. We all have they right to hold personal beliefs, but we have no right to prevent others commenting on them. You're obviously thinking back to your ancient astrology times.
You assert that, 'People … do not need to be told which beliefs are good ones and which ones are silly. What one person might call superstitious nonsense, another might take seriously, for a variety of reasons, all perfectly valid for the person concerned.' This smacks of relativism. Superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense whether you take it seriously or not. A serious belief in superstitious nonsense doesn't make it true or valid, no matter what variety of silly reasons one might offer. Strongly held beliefs are not the same as matters of fact. The fact that many people follow horoscopes, foretell their future with numerology, and pray to elephant headed gods would indicate that contrary to your belief Ken, many people do need help in identifying silly beliefs.
You finish your response likening our stance to 'The Inquisitors, the Crusaders, the Nazis, Stalinists and other hit squads'. You claim that, 'Historically, people who have taken a judgment stance on beliefs have brought huge and lasting shame on the human race. They have been responsible for the most heinous and appalling crimes in history'. You mention 'genocides, holocausts, ethnic cleansing', which are all basically the same thing actually, and 'inquisitions, and persecutions'. But this is a pathetic argument. Beliefs can be true and false, and can lead to good and bad outcomes. Merely selecting the outcomes of following some harmful beliefs and ignoring the rest is ingenuous. For example, I could suggest other beliefs that mankind took a judgement stance on, such as the equality of men and women, the abolition of slavery, democracy, voting rights for all, racial tolerance, that mental illness is not caused by demons, the adoption of human rights, free speech, and most importantly, the belief in science and a naturalistic world that produced the advanced society we have today. If mankind had not taken a stance on the validity of these beliefs, then we would still be consulting astrologers and our commenting on your beliefs would be classed as blasphemy. Also, do you not see it as ironic that you are allowed to take a judgement stance on your beliefs, going forth with public pronouncements, but your opponents aren't? And you have the arrogance to compare us with Nazis and Stalinists.
And I read your article on the zodiac Ken, and for the readers' benefit, it finished with a section entitled 'Implications for science', which began:
I didn't set out to fool anyone. I do not claim palmistry works, but if it does then it obviously also works for animals as vertebrates are anatomically common. And many believe it. It has its place, as does hypnosis and counselling. But it isn’t for everybody. It seems difficult for you to accept but what publishers and PR people write on jacket sleeves of books one part-writes is not necessarily one’s responsibility. The publishing world works in teams.
I repeat for the nth of the nth time, I am university trained and do not practise ancient divination techniques such as numerology or astrology. My methods are derived from these, but so is every other science in every university today. Get over it, and try to stop shrieking over a historical progression you clearly don’t fully understand.
Back to your claim that "my" astrology is not valid because there is not a university in the land that teaches it, well, the same can be said for a host of perfectly legitimate pursuits like sky diving, blacksmithery and bodybuilding, but that does not make them invalid. The university is only a training centre for specific crafts, it is not the oracle of all knowledge. As for ancient astrology, I do not practise it, but my work is unashamedly partly derived from it. The old astrologers like Galileo and Newton were expert mathematicians. So what? My work is also partly derived from Kepler’s contributions to modern calculus. You can discuss what you think is astrology and you will always be inventing your own argument, because not everyone buys into your labels. It is a red herring and has nothing to do with life. It is akin to discussing what we should call hypothetical fairies dancing on the head of a pin.
No, what you are doing is arguably much worse, and threatens our precious democracy. It is one thing to hold an opinion about another's beliefs, even to hold an opinion on what scientists promote in terms of climate change and global warming, but quite another to name me as you have done, call a website by my name, and publicly slander me by actual name. I have never done that to anyone, especially not you, and I challenge anybody anywhere to show where and when and if I have done so.
I have no opponents, except those who decide to attack me first. They only do so, like you, because they feel threatened. The Fearful, like you, feel that if society opened its doors to innovative ideas and methods, the power of their intellectual monopoly is that much diminished. Quite to the contrary, I have praised metservice staff as being rather brilliant at what they do, which is what I believe, and I have friends who work for the metservice, but I point out that they are not equipped to comment on longrange weather patterns because, even by their own admission, they do not have a longrange system. Even their shortrange lets them down as it did NIWA in April when they said we were in for a warmer winter. I am justified in taking a stand in expressing the belief that they can't do longrange, because they actually say they can't. On the other hand, they are great in marine biology. I am talking about them as a body. But, I would not be justified in naming even one of them at the same time as their belief. That's the difference between persecution and opinion.
It is part of the moral and ethical fibre of our society that no one is justified in naming someone to the point of where they can be identified, and singling them out for personal criticism along with their business. That is the law of this land and it is slander. Why? Because it is an act of sheer bullying, of mini-terrorism and of a moralising rednecked thicko. Your annoyance that someone thinks differently to you is pathetic. Your anger increases when those named refuse to take your abuse lying down. Your actions are of someone who, having no original life of his own, seeks his thrill from publicly humiliating and vandalising an item of personal property, such as their name. It is like idiot graffiti splattered over carefully crafted sculpture. If someone besmirches my name I do what anybody else would do, I defend it. Perhaps you have missed your calling and your country and perhaps you miss a military uniform. Yes, you are to be compared with Nazis and Stalinists. I think you are doing exactly what they did. The cap fits so wear it. Shame on you.
Yet another flip-flop Ken. One minute you're defending your palmistry for cats book as serious, then you claimed it was all a big joke, now you're back to suggesting it's kind of serious again:
You say, 'I repeat for the nth of the nth time, I am university trained and do not practise ancient divination techniques'. Yet for 'the nth time' you refuse to tell us what scientific university qualifications you have. Clown College does not count as 'university trained'. And for the 'the nth time' we mention the blurb on your book '"Predicting the Weather by the Moon" reveals vital information on how the Moon affects our weather, based on sound mathematics, ancient divination techniques and recently-discovered data from space research'. You claim you don't use ancient divination techniques, but you wanted buyers of your book to believe you did. It's strange how you suggest one thing in your books and another on Internet forums.
I didn't say astrology is not valid because no university teaches it. I said it's invalid because it's a pseudoscience, primitive superstitious nonsense and that science tossed it out with the rubbish centuries ago. You liken your form of astrology to legitimate pursuits such as sky diving, blacksmithery and bodybuilding, but none of these are 'science-backed' as you claim yours is. To match the essence of your pursuit, it might have been more appropriate to choose witchcraft, homeopathy and modern astrology itself as your examples. And as we've already demonstrated, Newton was not an astrologer, and Kepler made no conscious contributions to modern calculus, as he was long dead before it was invented.
You shouldn't feel so privileged Ken, our Web site is called 'Silly Beliefs', not 'Silly Ken Ring'. And again I must remind you that slander means 'making false statements about someone'. All our comments regarding you are true therefore not slanderous. And what arrogance, to continually say that you can express an opinion on something you disagree with, but no one else can. As for not naming those you disagree with, have you forgotten you have already admitted in a previous comment that you have indeed named and criticised others, such as:
And who are you trying to fool with this claim: 'I have praised metservice staff as being rather brilliant at what they do, which is what I believe'. Have you got Alzheimer's Ken? Have you forgotten how you described them to us:
You again say that we feel threatened by you. In a sense you are correct, but we feel that it is actually society that it is threatened by you, not us per se. The only thing where're fearful of is that people like yourself will drag us back to the superstitious beliefs of the Middle Ages, where everyone will believe in ancient astrology and not just you. Where people will look at the their cat's paws to diagnose an illness rather than taking them to the vet. And where all vets will again be versed in astrology.
You claim that 'It is part of the moral and ethical fibre of our society that no one is justified in naming someone to the point of where they can be identified, and singling them out for personal criticism along with their business. That is the law of this land and it is slander.'
What utter rubbish Ken. The TV program 'Fair Go' exists for this very purpose, and shows such as 'Close Up, Campbell Live' and '60 Minutes' also expose bogus business practices at times. And look at the criticism the Catholic Church, Brian Tamiki and the Destiny Church, and Hone Hawariwa have received. You again misunderstand ''slander'. It is about making false statements about someone, not about exposing their suspect behaviour.
We're not besmirching your name Ken, if your reputation is suffering it is because of revealing comments that you're making on forums such as this. We are merely commenting on your weather prediction methods and your convoluted attempts to explain them.
To move this debate along Ken, you keep saying that your methods are 'science-backed'. This means — in modern science anyway, perhaps not in ancient astrology — that they have the backing and support of modern science, so could you please tell us what peer-reviewed scientific journals detail this backing and support. Also in what modern science textbooks — note again I said science, not astrology — might we find explanations of the methods you use.
Most of your comments rehash tired old arguments, and you keep dragging up cats paws and other red herrings like my era of entertaining children, some in hospital cancer wards, as if I was a low life for doing so, and you try to suggest that therefore my work is somehow allied to those past activities, to the extent that it is not science-based enough for your approval. Please define science without being self-referential about it, i.e, without mentioning “study” or “discipline”, because then it would have to cover me. If you mean I am not a physicist, or a chemist, or a neurologist, well no, and I don’t claim to be, but science isn’t just what those branches of science practitioners say it is, any more than artists have a monopoly on defining art.
To correct you, Kepler was the father of modern calculus. It wasn’t called that in his time, but that is irrelevant. To also correct you about slander, it is about criticising someone by name. I’m glad you cite Fair Go, because Fair Go have been successfully sued and have settled out of court for unjustified slander. I have not broken any law, I sell opinions, nothing more, just as do economists, political commentators, doctors, teachers or consultants in the many varied fields of life consultants operate. I have not coerced anyone to buy from me, they have free choice. I have not robbed little old ladies of their life savings. Yes you have slandered, you have made up false statements about what I do, what I believe and what my ideas are based on. I tell you you are making it up and you go and invent a few more fantasies about me, based largely on your twisting of the words in my replies to bloggers! How very desperate to score points. You really should get out more.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/01/07/1247ebbdd0f8
after my pronouncements last September that a drought would arrive about now
http://www.randomhouse.co.nz/data/media/documents/press%20releases/Sept_09/Ken_Ring_2010_PR.pdf
and NIWA’s Dr Renwick saying the hottest time in January will be at the end of the month after it says that in my 2010 almanac, then I think that perhaps the country’s official metservice is now me. If they keep parroting me then I must be their source. There’s the peer-review for you, I’m their peer review. According to my access log, NZ Metservice and NIWA visit my website about every 10 days, and have done so for most of the past decade. They have come in under the names “metnet” and the old “niwa.cri.” What is that about? If it isn’t “science”, then we all go down together and nothing is left.
Ken, as you well know we have never mentioned your entertaining of children in cancer wards or suggested that you were 'a low life for doing so'. Are you trying to win the sympathy vote now? Remember that even Hitler loved children and animals and painting, but he also did other things in his later life that we don't praise so highly. We highlight your connection with astrology, numerology and palmistry because, according to your evidently sincere comments in your book, you claimed to believe in these things. There was no note on the last page saying, 'Ha Ha. It's all a joke. We don't actually believe in this nonsense, and no, you can't have your money back'. If your past activities are reflecting badly on your present schemes, then that's your problem. You're like the Miss Universe contestant who now regrets having done that nude photo shoot the previous year.
And I just love your heartfelt and honest appraisal of NZ farmers:
This 'Ringism' will definitely have to go into our article, even though you'll no doubt swear elsewhere that we made it up. What an insult to farmers Ken. You shouldn't assume that just because they throw your weather prediction handouts straight into the rubbish bin it's because they can't read.
Now that you've been told that Newton wasn't an astrologer, but Kepler was, you seem to have moved from idolising Newton to idolising Kepler, even to the extent of falsely attributing discoveries to him. Kepler is considered the founder of modern astronomy — note astronomy, not astrology — but he did not invent modern calculus. As the Wikipedia page on calculus states: 'Leibniz and Newton are usually both credited with the invention of calculus'. If you're going to reply that Kepler invented the basics of calculus and Leibniz and Newton merely formalised it, even this is false. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Muslims etc all developed basic elements of what would eventually become modern calculus. Please carefully examine both the Wikipedia page on calculus and the page on Kepler. Neither page makes a single mention of the other. It astounds me that you make such fundamental errors on claims that are so easy to research.
The same shoddy research can be said for your definition of the word 'slander'. You again claim, 'To also correct you about slander, it is about criticising someone by name'. Try typing 'definition' and 'slander' into Google and here are just some of the results:
Legal Definition of Slander: A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed;
definition of slander: Law: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2 . A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Legal Definition of Slander: (1.) Words falsely spoken of a person
legal definition of slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed ...
Slander Law & Legal Definition: Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander.
OK, now to your requested definition of science. Note that when you make a request, we try to oblige, unlike you refusing to say what your university training covered and what scientific qualification was the result.
The following I believe is a fair and typical definition of modern science, as understood by both the layperson and scientist:
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research...
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions.
But this is a typical pseudoscience ploy, to corrupt scientific terms so that the public believes your claims are real science. By adopting the broad definition you have so expanded the range of science that most everything is a science and nearly everyone is a scientist. You're a scientist, I'm a scientist, and your illiterate farmers are scientists. Your description 'science-backed' becomes meaningless because most everything is now 'science-backed', including blacksmithery and bodybuilding, witchcraft and Scientology. When people say 'I've got packing a suitcase down to a science', most everyone, maybe not you, and maybe not your hillbilly farmers, but most everyone else knows they don't really mean a 'real' science. When someone is identified on TV as a scientist, most everyone knows they are not then going to say they work as a blacksmith. When people say they hated science at school, no one is talking about Bible class. Most everyone views the term science in the 'restricted contemporary sense'. And in this true scientific sense, you Ken are no more practising science than is the Woman's Weekly astrologer, who let's remember, is also practising science by your definition.
My request that you provide references to the science that supposedly underpins your method obviously hit your conspiracy button. For someone that claims to be 'science-backed' you have a scathing opinion of the very thing that you say supports your claims. Did you think that your diatribe about climate change would cause me to fail to notice that you haven't provided any scientific references?
You mentioned predicting a drought in N Otago and that a meteorologist has repeated what you said. What you predicted was "North Otago is facing a six-month drought, with relief rains not due until June /July." This means that the drought was to start in January or February if it was to end six months later in June or July. The Otago Regional Council's resource management director in fact said that it has 'been dry since November', so you're a couple of months out. Also this 'drought' covers more than just North Otago. And why do you identify the resource management director as a meteorologist? Simply so you can claim 'devious meteorologists' are stealing your work? In a previous post (# 48) you began a comment with this claim '"Octo" who calls himself a professional meteorologist, posted … '. On the forum you're referring to 'Octo' informs you at least twice that he is not a meteorologist, that he works at collecting weather data but that he doesn't produce forecasts. However you continue to criticise him and identify as a meteorologist, and on other forums such as this you even up your false identification to 'professional meteorologist' and falsely insist that Octo made this claim himself. Your continual misrepresentation of forecasts and your opponents is yet another reason why we have no confidence in you.
And what's this nonsense about MetService and NIWA stealing your work and calling it their own? They don't need to look up your old maps, you got them off them originally remember? Do you really think they would access your site with criminal intent and give themselves silly names so that any idiot, even you, could identify them? Why not just buy your book? You've said your predictions aren't modified after they're written or closer to the actual date. If any MetService or NIWA employee does legitimately access your site I'm sure it's just for a good laugh and to obtain some amusing stories for Friday nite drinks.
You finished with, 'If it isn't "science", then we all go down together and nothing is left.' What I assume you mean by this is that if your method isn't real 'science', then we having nothing to go by and the end is nigh. Fear not Ken, the world isn't going to end. Ancient astrology isn't science and this was actually discovered centuries ago. Didn't you get the memo? And rather than bring about the collapse of democracy and the world, we have actually gone forward. Rejecting superstition was the best thing mankind ever did, and whether you chose to publish your almanac next year or not, trust me when I say the world will not only go on, it will even see progress.
Is it not time for you both (John & Ken) to grow up?
Hi John, Ken started his arguments again on the Australian based weather forum at www.weatherzone.com.au in particular in this thread. I counted just about every one of his arguments and using your blog and some further links I found I presented some level headed and unbiased information to the forum. He didn't answer anymore questions than he did in the Irish Boards when asked about scientific qualifications and when I asked him why he hadn't sued anyone for defamation he packed up and left in a hurry. As the threads in the forum are not deleted it will remain in place as long as Weatherzone is operational and will be searchable by anyone doing further research into him.
Another Weatherzone member from the USA (Aerology and his website) is claiming that Earth Tides and the 'magnetic influences of planets and sun when they appear in synod cause earthquakes', his description not mine and I have started looking into his claims which appear to mirror Ken's thinking as well.
I know he isn't a Kiwi but you might like to have a bit of a look at this bloke and maybe add him at a later date if you find his methods are similar to Ken's.
Please feel free to use any or all of my comments on your blog. Note: My Weatherzone forum name is 'Sir Boab Tree'.
Hi Mike, thanks for the links. I'm reading through the posts and you're right, Ring is just pushing the same old tired arguments again, including listing Isaac Newton as a supporter, sidestepping the critical questions and getting annoyed when people ask about palm reading for cats.
I've had a quick scan of the Aerology site and I'm no expert, but it does sound like pseudoscience to me. Some of his claims about the solar wind for example are bogus which suggests that his scientific knowledge is similar to that of Ken Ring.
HI
The argument that scientists and meteorologists are afraid of Ring's claimed success is nothing but a conspiracy theory, with no evidence to support it.
The conflict between science and pseudoscience is no different to the conflict between biologists and creationists, doctors and faith healers, and the police and psychic detectives. Only in the minds of a gullible few do creationists, faith healers, psychic detectives and Ken Ring appear to produce results that rival conventional methods. And they all consistently fail to produce evidence of their claimed successes. Ken Ring repeatedly says he prefers to talk to farmers and fishermen rather than scientists and meteorologists. To anyone who examines his methods it is obvious why. Ring and his supporters will remain on the lunatic fringe as long as he fails to produce scientific evidence, and refuses to engage with those that could evaluate and potentially validate his method. Ken is more interested in selling his books than winning a Nobel Prize.
I have monitored Ken Ring's weather forecasts for different periods over many years. During this time Ken Ring has had numerous spectacular disasters.
Examples for Whangarei rainfall:
Jan 07. Ken's forecast 425 mm. Actual 60 mm. 14% of his forecast.
In Nov 2003 Ken forecast that Dec 03, Jan, Feb and Mar 04 would be "wetter than average".
Nov 03 Actual 31 mm. Average 94 mm Far drier - one third of forecast.
July 2007 rainfall:
9th - 0.4 mm Ken's forecast - dry
In other words Ken Ring forecast seven consecutive dry days during which time a total of 257 mm of rain fell.
Tossing a coin would produce better results.
The recent floods in Southland, especially around Invercargill, and at present in Queenstown, motivated us into seeing how Ken Ring did in predicting these extreme weather events. The Southland floods hit the TV news on Tuesday, 27th of April, and were caused by heavy rain on Sunday and Monday, 25th and 26th of April. So how close was Ken? Did he predict the floods, or at least heavy rain, and give farmers time to move stock and winter-feed out of the path of the rising water, and Queenstown shopkeepers time to fill sandbags? Not surprisingly, no he didn't.
While Ken often argues that he is still right even if he is several days and up to a week out with his predictions, or if it does flood in a nearby province, it should be pointed out that no floods were predicted anywhere near — either in time or location — to the actual floods. Ken once again failed miserably. It just amazes us that people take him seriously and argue that he truly can predict the weather. Ken Ring couldn't predict high winds from the eye of a hurricane.
I'm sure some Ring groupies will write to note that they asked Ring to predict a sunny Saturday for their wedding or a fishing trip, and while it did actually rain a little on their special day, there was a lovely sunny day two days later on Monday, and both they and Ken Ring claim that that is close enough. Yeah right, sure it is. It's like believing a lottery ticket number that is just two digits from the winning ticket is still a winner. Try telling that to the lottery officials.
And let's remember that it is extreme weather events such as floods and droughts that the likes of farmers want to know about. In general they couldn't care less about a light drizzle or a little fog or a slight frost. They want to know if they should move stock to higher ground or if they can cut their hay or harvest a crop. Ken should come down to Southland and explain to those farmers that might have been silly enough to believe in his weather almanac how 'dry' weather causes their bales of winter feed to be surrounded by some wet stuff with ducks floating in it.
Another dramatic Ken Ring faux pas, especially as 26 July 2008 was a Saturday.
Mr Ring's forecast for 26 July in Whangarei was "dry", and for the 48 hours both before and after was for "light intermittent showers" — a good day to choose for a wedding.
In fact Saturday July 26th produced a weather bomb involving huge rainfall and the deepest low to hit New Zealand for more than a decade. Whangarei received 120 mm of rain in 24 hours. Flooding was widespread with the business area evacuated.
Hi John, love the Silly Beliefs page on Ken Ring.
Do you have any data from Ken Ring's predictions in an electronic form? The more the better.
I've just discovered that NIWA provide free access to historical weather measurements: 'http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/'
I'm a statistician (and skeptic). So, if I can get my hands on a large amount of Ken's prediction data, I'd like to test it against actual measurements.
Hi Steve, thanks for your comments. No sorry, we don't have any of Ring's predictions in electronic form. We've had to consult his almanacs. He does put some of his basic predictions online in his 'Weather ezine'. They go from 2000 to 2009.
I'm assuming he probably wouldn't be willing to release data that could allow easy, large-scale comparisons with the real world. Ring of course claims that these checks have already been performed, but only by himself it seems, and not by an independent expert, such as a statistician.
Of course as we both know anybody that really believed in their system and wanted to convince a skeptical audience would readily release their data to prove their claims, so you could always ask Ring for a copy. Ring's past data is now history, public knowledge in his almanacs, and of no commercial value, so an unwillingness to divulge it would suggest he might be afraid of what it would reveal.
It certainly would be interesting to see a real, scientific check of ALL of Ring's predictions, but we won't hold our breath that Ring will assist in this endeavour.
'Silly Beliefs' said:
Regardless of whether you have a genuine belief that what you are doing works or not, it is clearly unethical (and in many cases illegal) to sell or promote something as working when it does not. Psychics would be a prime example - many of them sincerely believe that they have real powers, but if they can't demonstrate said powers under sensible observing conditions then they have no business taking money from people.
(See also "dowsing rod bomb detectors")
Ken said:
Apparently he also talked about:
"This was well before his current career as a long-range weather forecaster."
On a side note re GW - it's interesting that KR is able to cite a huge, world-wide conspiracy about GW and then in almost the same breath bring up what happened when the media got wind of (apparently) an actual cover up / data fabrication.
Clearly, the evidence that we have strongly demonstrates the self-correcting nature of the scientific process.
Ken said:
"...cooked the books and fiddled the figures..."
"I have no desire to be peer-reviewed by frauds and liars."
The following is an attempt to simply explain libel. I am not a lawyer.
Libel is: Saying something about someone (in print) that is false (and may cause them harm - e.g. distress or loss of business)
E.g. Calling someone a fraud or a liar is potentially libelous.
If you claim that someone "fiddled the figures" they can attempt to sue you for libel.
If they can demonstrate that they did not, in fact, fiddle any figures - then you have libeled them and they will win the case.
If you can demonstrate that they did fiddle the figures, then you haven't libeled them (i.e. what you said was true) and you will win.
Also - If you claim that someone has "publicly slander[ed] me by actual name", and said person has not, then you can be sued for libel (or slander).
Libel is not:
If I say "Ken Ring publishes a book", this is not libel, because it is true.
If I say "Ken Ring claims the weather is caused by the moon", this is also not libel - because it is also true.
If I say that "Predicting the weather based on the phases and position of the moon has not been scientifically demonstrated", this is also not libel.
This is not libel (IMHO) because it does not reference a person or organisation. And also because it is true.
(It may also be interpreted as my opinion which may also make it not libel)
If I state that a particular book is a scam and that the author is knowingly conning people - these are statements that could be potentially libelous.
However - if I then proceed to back up these statements with quotes (that can be checked and verified) where the author has contradicted himself, lied, and misrepresented his book and or his predictions, and show how the scientific evidence demonstrates that the book is clearly
wrong then its no longer libel because it's true.
Explanation of ad hominem:
The fallacy of ad hominem (what KR has been referring to as personal attacks) is when, in an argument or debate, the arguer attacks an opponent _instead_ of addressing their arguments or statements.
The two key points are:
The argument is ignored
and
The person making the argument is criticised _instead_
If I said: "Ken Ring (who is a person) personally writes a book (that is a book that he wrote himself), and in that book he personally wrote the following, which is factually inaccurate..."
That would not be a personal attack, because my arguments and comments are intended to discuss (and debunk) the claims and arguments in the book.
Criticising a persons ideas, beliefs, claims, opinions, or ability to predict the future is not a personal attack.
Calling someone "like a mad snarling dog", "a self-appointed watchdog", a "bully", "arrogant", "inquistorial"(sic), and statements like: "erected 3 websites dedicated to jackbooting me", "...because you have set yourself up as their adviser"(sic) and:
This week we received an extraordinary email from Ken Ring that he believes explains why we are criticising him for no apparent reason. We've written about it in our blog: Ken Ring reveals evil conspiracy.
Perhaps you should eat your very scientific words eh....... did you feel the earthquake predicted by Ken ring or did I just imagine it. ?....silly me
What scientific words? What earthquake did Ken predict? What did you imagine? Perhaps you could be a little clearer in what you're trying to say.
How absolutely absurd it would be to suggest the moon affects the earth, hell it's only responsible for the tides and life in general through slowing the rotation of the earth enough to support temperate seasons.
Like Ring himself, you obviously haven't read our article, nor do you understand our argument. Your suggestion that we claim the Moon's gravity doesn't affect the Earth is utterly false and insulting.
We have never said that the Moon's gravity would have no affect on earthquakes, we've said that Ken Ring can not predict when and where these earthquakes will appear. We are not debunking the Moon, but Ken Ring.
And your comprehension of the article you linked to seems to be questionable as well. You apparently offer it as proof that scientists have found that the moon causes our earthquakes and that they can be predicted, as Ken Ring claims. However, the article clearly states:
"But it seems like it must be very subtle, because we actually don't see a tidal signal in regular earthquakes. Even though the earthquake zone also sees the tidal stress and also feels the added periodic behavior of the tremor below, they don't seem to be very bothered."
'In fact, the shear stress from the sun, moon and ocean tides amount to around 100 Pascals, or one-thousandth atmospheric pressure, whereas the pressure 25 kilometers underground is on the order of 600 megaPascals, or 6 million times greater.'
Ken Ring was asked: 'How is it you can predict earthquakes too?', and he replied: 'Predicting earthquakes requires a lot of calculation, which I did a few years ago one month ahead for three earthquake events in this country.'
Here Ring claims to have predicted not one, not two, but three earthquakes successfully, and yet still no one believes him. And if he did the calculations it can't be that hard. But then regarding earthquake prediction Ring contradicts himself because he adds, 'The point is, it is possible but it would require cooperation between geologists, astronomers, and probably astrologers, but I doubt that anybody would fund such an enterprise.' He, the lone astrologer, easily and cheaply predicted three earthquakes, but now he claims that prediction would actually require expensive consultation with geologists and astronomers as well. He changes his story too often for us to be able to believe anything he says.
And surely predicting the recent Canterbury earthquake, not to mention the Haiti quake which claimed 230,000 lives, would have gained him more fame and fortune than predicting a light drizzle in Auckland does. If Ring could truly predict earthquakes, then a Nobel Prize awaits him. But it seems he's not interested, too busy predicting frosts to worry about saving lives.
But I did predict the earthquake, and was on the radio the day before with the prediction for a big earthquake in the South island. Read my article on it
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home
Later on his show, Marcus Lush congratulated me with the prediction.
The Christchurch earthquake, subsequent aftershocks, Hurricane Igor and all the smaller cyclones north of the equator, the wild weather in NSW and the wild, windy, snowy extreme weather in NZ currently petering out are/were all part of the same system, being that the moon was the second closest to earth for the year and is now hot-footing it to being the fourth furthest away, a situation causing international turbulence in land, sea and air. Add to that the run-up to equinox and you have a predictable scenario for damage. The southern hemisphere has been most affected because the moon has been over it. It will be Ireland’s turn for rain and floods next week.
Of course most geologists and meteorologists on state salaries would always deny that any of this is predictable, because they get paid more for reportage than for trend analysis. If sea-tides ruled our fiscal lives as much as weather and ground shocks do, then presumably extreme sea-tides would also be ruled unpredictable. Thankfully commercial tide tables are available which prove that massive forces controlling these huge bodies of matter are in fact cyclic and measurable.
Just as glass is a liquid, so air and land are flows and in constant flux due to lunar and solar forces, and air and land are bodies of matter of less and more viscosity than water. To suppose that the moon does not shift them all around without bias is to suppose the moon has intelligence and preferences. Talk about silly beliefs! Just because science has no fundable agendae to investigate the land and air tides does not negate them. Science has not gone there simply because to do so was always considered anti-Christian and anti the God that makes everything happen by His Almighty Hand. When scientists were hunted down like rabbits and slaughtered it is wiser to change the truth than to die.
There are more shakes coming. Earthquakes are predictable, as tides are. We’re talking about another type of tide, this time underground. The Earth has two moons, one above in the sky and one the same size, a ball called the inner molten core. It doesn’t need a supercomputer to work out where and when earthquakes will appear. You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team; one to work out where the moon will be and one to work out where the drums are starting to pop. One to work out the target and one to drop the bomb. I’ve proven it can be done. I’ve also predicted when the next shakes will cluster. But one thing that neither astrologer nor geologist can tell is how far down the faults will separate. That is the wild card.
Just more lies and myths Ken, but thanks for the opportunity to debunk your claims some more. You say you predicted the devastating Canterbury earthquake, and yet this 'prediction' was only made on an obscure radio station that can't even be received in Canterbury. Furthermore, the people who paid good money for your almanac weren't given this warning. Why not Ken? They paid for your advice and you withheld it from them, and yet you gave it away for free to a handful of people in Auckland. Why did you think they would be interested but not those in Canterbury?
You claim, 'But I did predict the earthquake… a big earthquake in the South island'. Bullshit! Here is the vague, all encompassing prediction that you say you gave the day before the disastrous Canterbury earthquake: "you'll be reading about floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so, particularly the South Island ..and this time next week things will start to ease off and we'll get the aftermath."
You didn't just say 'earthquake', you said 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow'. Earthquakes were third on your list, and what happened to the floods, winds and snow? You didn't say that they would be of disaster proportions. You didn't say 'big earthquake', you just said 'earthquake', which are happening all the time. You didn't say Christchurch or Canterbury, you said 'particularly the South Island', which also includes the North Island. You didn't say that a disastrous earthquake would strike Canterbury the very next day, you merely said that all of NZ, and particularly the South Island, would get 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so'. But you did say that disastrous floods, winds and snow would hit as well over the next couple of weeks. They didn't. We must assume they were also to be of disaster proportion since your disaster earthquake prediction was among them.
Like psychics, you make lots of vague statements — 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow' — 'particularly the South Island' — 'over the next week or so' — and then cherry pick an event that did happen while burying all your false predictions. Then after the fact you claim, 'But I did predict the earthquake', even though you never mentioned a disastrous earthquake, you never mentioned Christchurch, you never mentioned Sept 4th. Stop inventing the past Ken.
And what's this nonsense: 'geologists and meteorologists on state salaries would always deny that any of this is predictable, because they get paid more for reportage than for trend analysis'. You're confusing reporters and paparazzi with geologists and meteorologists. They spend their days on 'trend analysis', trying to determine what conditions lead to what effects. To claim that they are just reporting on what they saw yesterday is a slur against their professionalism.
You also imply that both we and science are doing our best to deny that there is such a thing as sea and land tides caused by the sun and moon, when in fact it is science that discovered the source of these tidal forces and measured them. Not astrologers. You also suggest that our belief that the moon's gravity doesn't noticeably affect humans or the weather means that we must believe that 'the moon has intelligence and preferences' and is consciously picking what it affects. Only a person with your primitive and superstitious beliefs could believe something as ridiculous as that.
Then you do your best to spread more urban myths and lies. First myth, that glass is a liquid. As the conclusion to this article debunking this myth states: 'Glasses are amorphous solids… Structurally, glasses are similar to liquids, but that doesn't mean they are liquid'. Stop believing everything some idiot tells you Ken.
You then falsely and naively state: 'Just because science has no fundable agendae to investigate the land and air tides does not negate them. Science has not gone there simply because to do so was always considered anti-Christian…' Bullshit Ken. Who do you think has accurately measured the distortion caused by the moon's tidal forces Ken, scientists or silly astrologers looking for the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?
And then you add this blatant lie to support the work of astrologers: 'Science has not gone there simply because to do so was always considered anti-Christian… When scientists were hunted down like rabbits and slaughtered it is wiser to change the truth than to die'. Come on Ken, this never happened and you know it. In fact you keep reminding anyone who will listen that not just great scientists like Newton and Kepler were astrologers, but that 'all scientists were astrologers first and foremost, and… Sir Isaac Newton described astrology as the first science'. But how could astrologers like Newton and Kepler and 'all scientists' have achieved what they did if they were in fact 'hunted down like rabbits and slaughtered' for dabbling in astrology? Are lies the only way that you can support your insidious scam Ken?
You falsely claim that 'Earthquakes are predictable, as tides are. We're talking about another type of tide, this time underground'. Rubbish. Earthquakes are the sudden movement of the earth's crust and are explained best by plate tectonics.
And what's this nonsense: 'The Earth has two moons, one above in the sky and one the same size, a ball called the inner molten core'. Yes, the earth has a core, but it's not a moon. A moon is a satellite of a planet Ken. Also your description of this core is wrong. The inner core is solid, not molten, it is the outer core that is liquid or molten. Furthermore the inner core is smaller than the moon and the entire core is twice the diameter of the moon. Stop referring to your ancient astrology books Ken, as you can see, they're full of errors.
You then say that 'It doesn't need a supercomputer to work out where and when earthquakes will appear. You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team… I've proven it can be done'. No you haven't, and previously you've claimed that prediction would require 'cooperation between geologists, astronomers, and probably astrologers'. Why don't you need astronomers any more? If you've already correctly predicted earthquakes then you've proven that you don't need the help of either geologists or astronomers. You're getting tripped up on your own lies Ken.
In your article you stated that 'Anyone living in Christchurch who might be reading this would probably be able to confirm a feeling of high ground energy that would have been prevailing all through the earthquake week, but then went on the wane, headaches disappeared, kids became calmer, people more able to catch up on sleep, a change in energy pulse. There are skeptics who don't believe in this sort of thing, and they're entitled to their views, but equally there are those who do believe who are also entitled to their outlook on it'. What New Age nonsense is this Ken — 'high ground energy' followEd by 'a change in energy pulse'? What planet are you from? Of course you're entitled to your view, as you agree as are we, and our view is that this is talk one would expect from a medieval peasant who was dropped on his head as a child, repeatedly. Have you not heard of the psychological notions such as stress and fear that would increase after a disaster and wane as things returned to normal? Why do you have to imagine some invisible mind altering energy pulse emitted by earthquake fairies?
In your article published on 18th Sep, 2010, you assert that 'The Christchurch earthquake… and the wild, windy, snowy extreme weather in NZ currently petering out are/were all part of the same system'. What happened to your crystal ball Ken? Starting early on the 18th Invercargill received its worst snowfall for at least 50 years, causing the collapse of the $10 million dollar Southland Stadium, and the entire country was racked with vicious storms and floods. And yet according to you any extreme weather that might be anywhere in NZ was 'petering out'. Your 'Extreme weather not yet in the news' webpage has this to predict about this period: 'September: Third week: About 15th, floods in Afghanistan; about 16th, late frosts affect stone fruit, about 20th, floods in Waipa River'. In your almanac for the 17th Sept your map says there is a chance of frost or snow, you won't commit to which, although it's mostly likely frost rather than snow, as the text states: 'Fine in … Southland'. And for the 18th you predict that there is no likelihood of frost or snow, also nothing for the 19th, 20th and 21st. And yet, hail storms on the 17th and then the worst snowstorm for 50 years. Isn't it a little embarrassing Ken that you would completely miss such extreme weather? Apart from boosting your bank account Ken, what use are predictions that are so wrong?
And here's another of your science bloopers: 'As all of force is mass x acceleration, it is presumably the mass of the moon (greater when in perigee because it is closer) combined with the accelerating speed (of orbit relative to the orbit of the earth) which could apply enough force to separate tectonic plates'. The mass of the moon does not increase when it is closer to the earth, it stays constant. And anyway, we thought you reckoned it was the force of gravity that caused earthquakes, which is 'directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them', not mass times acceleration. And why in your explanation do you say 'it is presumably the mass of the moon…'? Haven't you and your fellow astrologers worked out exactly what is happening? You're still just making assumptions, still just guessing?
Like most Kiwis Ken we've watched a lot of TV coverage of the Canterbury quake. Strangely your name hasn't been mentioned once as the great seer that predicted the disaster. Not once Ken. I guess you're the only fool that believes in hindsight that they did imagine that they predicted the earthquake. But you still couldn't be bothered to go down and warn them could you?
This website is patethic website supporting Euro science thats leading us to world war 3!!
Id perfer the readings of nature and support Ken Ring.
This message from Maori Einstein aka Lady Justice
You need to remember Maori Einstein that what you call 'Euro science' is what gave you electricity, computers and the internet and allows you to preach to us that we shouldn't be using or supporting it. In fact science and the resultant technology have given us greatly increased safety, security, freedom, health, knowledge and prosperity, and made this point in history the best ever. As we've noted elsewhere, the truth is that life expectancy for most of human history has been between 20 and 30 years, and finding food, shelter and personal safety — pure survival — was the only goal for most everyone. The claim that science has damaged our way of life is demonstrating complete ignorance of the way life used to be.
If you wish to return to nature and live as our primitive and ignorant ancestors did, divining messages from the bright fires in the sky or from chicken entrails, then by all means support Ken Ring. But make sure you trash or give away your PC, TV, cellphone, heaters, car, clothes, medicines etc — all those evil things derived from science — so that people don't think you a hypocrite, decrying science while enjoying it's benefits.
Also it's rather ironic that you see yourself as a genius, an Einstein even, one of the great contributors to modern science, and yet you denounce that very discipline.
Furthermore, by 'Euro science' we assume you're talking about 'Western science' or 'Pakeha science'. As we've tried unsuccessfully to explain to Ken Ring, there is no such thing as 'Euro science' or even 'Maori science'. There is only science, it's the same whichever country you're in. There is no 'Euro gravity' and 'Kiwi gravity', just gravity.
And perhaps you could explain why scientific knowledge is pushing us towards World War 3. We'd be interested in knowing how a microscope, telescope or particle accelerator can goad us in to a war, and against whom?
Maori Einstein aka Lady Justice — Take off all your clothes (yes ALL!) then walk (yes WALK!) to the nearest cave and live there for the rest of your life as a naked animal of nature. Don’t be tempted to make a skirt or anything from flax as your ancestors did because that would be a form of science that will put you on the slippery slope towards WW3!
Alternatively, stop being so idealistically and immaturely stupid.
Incidentally — Ken Ring has forecast that there will be snow in Christchurch on the 28/09/2010. “Euro science” predicts scattered clouds with a high of 20 degrees. Wonder who will be correct.
The earthquake I predicted for 24 Sept for Christchurch on my website
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home
occurred at 3.40am. In this online article for the past 10 days or so I have said it would occur at around 4.00am, so yes, I was out by 20 minutes.
Get over it guys, I was correct.
Today’s shake in Rolleston was the biggest one in the Christchurch region since the 8th of September, and out of over 800 shakes in the Christchurch region it was 22nd strongest.
That’s not a coincidence. It shows that they CAN be predicted.
Another has just occurred tonight in Tokoroa, a 5.6 mag, pretty big by anyone’s standards. It proves that they are clustering again, being of course the full moon. The whales have as usual stranded around an earthquake-rich time, because the earthquakes under the sea get them when they chase krill etc along the ocean floor in the undersea trenches. The shell shocked whales then float up and the tide brings them in.
The next earthquake-risk time is Oct 1st-7th. Stay tuned.
What bullshit Ken. You state that there have been 800 earthquakes and yet you claim you've only predicted two of them. That means you've failed to predict 798 earthquakes. That's a pathetic success rate of less than 1%, or 0.25% to be exact. 800 earthquakes over 21 days, that's an average of around 38 earthquakes every day or three every two hours. With all these earthquakes you still only managed to predict two of them?!!
And you actually didn't even predict those two either. We've already shown you didn't predict the big one, and you didn't predict the Rolleston one either. You didn't say 'it would occur at around 4.00am'. You actually said this vague statement: 'the next full moon may present as an earthquake potential time. Earthquakes cluster more around new moons and full moons… The 24th is full moon in apogee… The same potential will be present again anytime after 4am on the 24th. The focus of the node will be 12.48pm'. You only said there 'may' be an earthquake, and 'anytime after 4am', not at 4am, with the focus actually being at 12.48pm. Also, you said 'Earthquakes cluster more around new moons and full moons', and this gives you a possible window of two whole weeks (every month) when you could claim your prediction was correct. With an average of three earthquakes every two hours, we don't know why you didn't confidently say there WILL be an earthquake at 4am in Rolleston. Guessing alone might have seen you get it right. I'm sure we could speak to hundreds of Cantabrians who have made many more successful predictions than you have, and they would have just been guessing.
Also you said, 'As to where, on 24th the moon has an east/west fault orientation, so for NZ only N Cant/Marl may be in the zone'. So again you were wrong. Living in Auckland you may not realise that Rolleston is south of Christchurch, so isn't in N Cant/Marl. So no, you didn't predict the Rolleston earthquake.
You say your Rolleston prediction was 'not a coincidence', and we think you are probably correct. Mere chance alone would suggest that you would guess far more than just two earthquakes out of more than 800, so it would seem that evil astrological forces are deliberately withholding important signs from you. Have you not made the appropriate sacrifices lately? I guess virgins are becoming hard to come by, and who can get their hands on good quality myrrth these days.
And what's this nonsense about 'shell shocked whales'? Your talents are wasted Ken, you should be writing children's stories, not silly weather predictions.
Ken Ring: “The next earthquake-risk time is Oct 1st - 7th. Stay tuned.”
Incredibly vague “prediction” Ken. Please answer the following so we can at least accept that you have made an actual prediction . . .
Are you saying there is no "earthquake-risk time" before Oct 1st - 7th (other than expected aftershocks)?
Is this “earthquake-risk time from Oct 1st - 7th” for Christchurch/Canterbury, anywhere in New Zealand, or some distant country?
Still predicting snow for Christchurch on the 28th Sept (this month) Ken?
[Re Comment #90] You didn’t read my words carefully enough. The moon’s node is the trigger, the nearer the node the greater the trigger, provided other factors also in place. The node over Christchurch was 4am. This time other factors (largely unknown) were perhaps absent, so the energy may have been in a sense purer, and possibly why the earthquake arrived then. I’m only trying to suggest lines of research and pointing out factors that no one else seems willing to look into. No harm in that, although doubtless you’ll imagine some.
And me predict 800 earthquakes? Who’s going to fund me for that?
You?
Ken, you ask who is going to fund you to predict earthquakes? Why not the same people that funded you to predict the two that you claim credit for? If you didn't need funding for those two (or the assistance of geologists and astronomers), then why do you need it now? And think about it Ken, the Canterbury quake is going to cost the country billions. Do you not think the government and/or insurance companies might fund you if they thought you could actually predict earthquakes?
Remember Ken, there's been over 800 earthquakes in Canterbury this month and you didn't manage to predict one of them. That's a pathetic track record. And you want people to give you money so you can carry on failing to predict earthquakes? There are only so many gullible idiots in NZ Ken, and many are already giving you money for useless weather predictions, where are these morons going to find money for bogus earthquake predictions as well?
The fact is that no intelligent, rational individual or body is going to give an astrologer money to make vague guesses based on a superstitious belief that was debunked centuries ago.
Alison, I have never claimed to be an expert on whales.
I don’t know what individual species prefer to chase and eat, or where they chase them, all that is largely immaterial. Many species gravitate towards the ocean floor, especially when the moon is in northern declination and downward currents are instigated, which is when many strandings seem to occur. There is all sorts of feed there. The orography of the coastline would have a lot to do with it due to ocean flow and tidal drift from fault-rich areas of the sea, which is why strandings seem to be more common in some places than others, and which is possibly why the Canterbury coastline does not have a stranding history to match Spirits Bay. That moon peak times, earthquakes and strandings coincide suggests some causality.
There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion and one theory is as valid as another and not ‘nonsense’, and when I correctly predict earthquake potential times it adds credence to the moon being an influential factor. I said the full moon would probably bring them again, and since Saturday morning over a dozen sizeable aftershocks at the larger end of the scale have rocked the region. Of course as soon as I open my mouth SB jumps down it on principle like a raging pit-bull, even though other scientists in other parts of the world have confirmed what I say. Choosing to join this SB mad-dog mentality is unfortunate as it diminishes your other points.
Hi Guys. Excellent takedown of Ken Ring on your site. He did a talk at TEDx Auckland today [26th]. First time I've seen him speak and I'm unimpressed, I expected more charisma. He kept going off topic, cracked some jokes and did some magic tricks... I think they were aimed to impress? Made me sick how people pander to him. Sorry just wanted to get that off my chest.
Keep up the fight.
P.S. Oh and he went on about how he predicted the Christchurch earthquake "to the day" in a book he wrote 2 years ago. He said "to publish he has to write his book 2 years ahead of time, that that is a requirement."
P.P.S. The talk will be online as all the TEDx talks get made accessible. I'll send you a link when I have it.
Hi, I don't know if Ken Ring can predict the weather, or earthquakes, but I think that if there are correlations between what the moon does and what the earth does, then why not track it and look for patterns? We don't know everything yet, that's for sure. Not even close. The moon does affect the sea, plants, many womens' monthly cycle runs in tune with it, so why not the earth and the weather? Seems feasible to me. The thing is, if he is often wrong, then people won't buy his book the next year. No problem. The 1-7 October prediction mentions N Canterbury and Marlborough, for the person that was asking. I personally, hope he is wrong for that one!
I wanted to mention the 'high ground energy' because it's something that we had been talking about, me and my friends here in Chch. In the days after the earthquake, particularly the day of the biggest aftershock (I think that was the 6th?), things just felt 'odd'. Now, you might say it was just psychological trauma or whatever, and maybe that was part of it, but there was a definite edginess, just almost 'in the air'. The air was still and felt weird. I noted that my animals were behaving strangely too, not doing their usual thing in the usual place and also the birds weren't singing at the usual time. Then the next day, even though there were more aftershocks, it just felt different. Everyone was more relaxed, the animals were behaving normally and there was a bit of a breeze. It was noticeable. I don't think I'm nuts. There have been days since then where we have been very freaked out by the aftershocks, but that strange eerie feeling has not come back, it was just there after the first big shock.
So.. let's see...
Hi Sara. You ask, 'if there are correlations between what the moon does and what the earth does, then why not track it and look for patterns?' This of course is a sensible question, but the thing is that scientists have been observing the moon for hundreds of years, that's why we know that it causes the tides in the oceans (and in the land), why it's slowly moving away from us, and why it always shows one face to us. For much of history people thought the objects in the heavens influenced life on earth, that is, they believed they saw a correlation between events and the movement of objects like the moon. This was called astrology, but we now know they were wrong. Yes people can now say that the moon's gravity causes the tides, but they can't then assume that it causes our personalities as well. There is evidence for the tides but not for our personalities. Likewise they can't say it causes our weather either, because experts have looked and failed to find any good evidence. And we state again, there is no evidence that women's menstrual cycles are tied to the moon, even though some will appear to be by pure chance alone. You say that many women are, but as even Ring keeps pointing out, the moon is not intelligent, it can't pick some and not others, it's everyone or no one.
You said that 'The 1-7 October prediction mentions N Canterbury and Marlborough, for the person that was asking'. No it doesn't. This statement is by itself at the very end of his article: 'Next risk period: Oct 1st-7th'. There is no mention of where this relates to, although in the article when mentioning early October Ring says, 'so the shake this time could be anywhere between Te Anau and White Island'. So it could be a large part of the South Island at the very least, or most of NZ, depending on which White Island Ring is referring to. Another example of vague predictions.
As for the 'high ground energy' feeling, Ring believes this is due to earthquakes, so it should have been present whenever there were quakes, and yet both you and he said it disappeared. It does just sound psychological to us, since as people got used to the aftershocks and their stress and fear subsided, so behaviour returned to normal.
You also say, 'The thing is, if he is often wrong, then people won't buy his book the next year. No problem.' Oh, if only that were true. Astrology and those horoscope columns and books are always wrong, and yet people keep buying the books. The thing is, both horoscopes and Ring's predictions are so vague and banal that they often appear correct. Horoscopes will say around Xmas that you might be going on a trip or might receive a gift, and Ring will say there is a chance it might rain, meaning it might also be fine. No matter what happens, rain or fine, Ring's clients are foolish enough to think he got it right.
[Re Comment #95 — Ken Ring:]
Ken, in Comment #95 you talk knowingly about 'The orography of the coastline', and I admit I had to look up what orography meant, but maybe you should have too. It's 'the study of the physical geography of mountains and mountain ranges', nothing to do with coastlines, and hence nothing to do with the stranding of whales. Your argument is that whales are hit by earthquakes in 'undersea trenches' and that 'ocean flow and tidal drift from fault-rich areas of the sea' cause 'The shell shocked whales [to] float up and the tide brings them in'. What evidence do you have that stunned whales are simply washing up on our beaches like flotsam and jetsam? And if these earthquakes can stun these big, powerful mammals, why aren't other weaker sea creatures being affected? Why just whales on the beach, why isn't it a who's who of the sea world?
'I said the full moon would probably bring them [earthquakes] again… [and] other scientists in other parts of the world have confirmed what I say'. Why do you keep lying to the world Ken? You are not a scientist, so stop implying that you are. And what reputable scientists have said that the moon is causing these earthquakes Ken? Please tell us.
You also show your ignorance of science by claiming that 'There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion and one theory is as valid as another…'. Scientific knowledge is not a body of opinions Ken. By your comments you pretend to be working in a scientific manner, and yet you falsely use the term 'theory' as a layperson would, meaning a guess or a hunch. Is one opinion, one 'theory', really as valid as another Ken? Evolution or creationism, a round earth or a flat earth, a universe billions of years old or only a few thousand, presents are delivered by Santa or by parents, insanity is caused by mental illness or demons, lost keys just happen or are brought about by gremlins? If you think that these competing 'theories' are equally valid, equally likely to be correct — and your argument is that they are — then you further demonstrate that you have no understanding of science, reason and evidence. You are as we've always maintained, a dabbler in pseudoscience. You use scientific terms and scientific sounding phrases to fool your audience into thinking that what you do is scientific, when it is nothing other than primitive nonsense. An astrologer poring over mystical charts on his kitchen table, trying to convince a skeptical world that his visions of snow and earthquakes are real.
And so it eventually came to pass, that an earthquake did strike the earth's surface, and some drizzle did fall, and lo, Ken Ring the Great Astrologer proclaimed, 'See, I told you there'd be an earthquake'. And the world did rejoice and worship the soothsayer, and his holy Weather Almanac was sold out for the first time.
It's funny he accuses climate scientists of "not accepting his ideas because his ideas challenge a world view that scientists have built their careers upon..." When in fact Ken Ring has build a career out of his own "beliefs". I stress "his, and his alone". I think his problem is described as "Simple minded certitude". Ken is unable to back down in face of the evidence against his ideas. He has painted himself into a corner. He would have nothing if he backed down. Unless he went back to doing magic tricks for school kids. Pretty sad.
What annoys me is how people pander to him. People should be telling him his ideas are baseless... not crediting for being a visionary or a rebel.
Your website is great, keep up the fight.
Ring states, at comment 92, "Today’s shake in Rolleston [ 24-Sep 3:40:16AM, Magnitude = 4.59, see http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeMap/Single/?Index=35], was the biggest one in the Christchurch region since the 8th of September".
However on the 12-Sep at 6:03:21AM there was a Magnitude = 4.64 Near Springston, New Zealand, see
http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeMap/Single/?Index=306.
It’s a pity you didn’t understand what I was saying Rob, because as you admit, you went to TEDx with a bias towards me. Seems you managed to retain that bias.
Yes, I used props to illustrate points, and those points were that ideas should be challenged all the time, and that makes a healthy environment. But they must first be allowed into the marketplace, which means they should be embraced even by ardent sceptics, for no one has all the answers and no one is qualified to set themselves up as the arbiter of correct theories.
Reform only comes from mavericks. The marketplace itself will decide which ideas go forward and which mavericks become mainstream eventually. The market place doesn’t need to be protected from itself by those who think they know better than to give it free reign. The marketplace doesn’t need a nagging busybody telling it to shun certain ideas.
Yes, I use magic. But as you saw, I exposed what I did because I was out to show how we can be led astray by others telling us what to think, like those who run this blog. That you missed that point was a shame. My aim is getting farmers to try my ideas of incorporating cycles into their planning. In my talks I explain my methods. I want audiences to try them. They do, with good results. The only people who try to shut me down are those who have competing business interests. Although they will deny it I assure you this blog is registered by a corporation allied to weather service companies.
You keep insulting people who buy my book. How arrogant.
You call them foolish, when I obviously did get it right, there are many farmers who have made longterm decisions based on my recommendations, and in some cases it has saved their farms. Yet you would speak for them and tell them they were wasting their time. You will try to give the impression your metservice companies supply all that is needed, when many farmers tell me none of them and my almanac id the only tool they use.
I have hundreds of emails to substantiate this. What on earth is wrong with you people? As Sara says, nobody has to buy my book. Yet they do. The same ones, every year. And every year the same farming groups have me back to address them with the following year’s report for their region. For goodness sake get over it. Grow out of the playground bully mindset.
You rubbish Sara when she tells you something that I have already many emails confirming. Face it, people have experiences that are real to them. If someone describes a feeling, who on earth do you think you are to deny them that? The Feeling Police now? My god, it is incredible!!!
YOU may not like me because you deal with weather service companies who find my work competes with their own, so you have a bias based on your own profit.
Learn that this is a democracy and that we are all allowed a free voice. You don’t have to listen. I don’t expect everyone to embrace what I am saying, for various reasons. But I will never stand in the way of someone with a theory that is different to mine, nor would I try to wreck his business with taunts, with name-calling and with calls to boycott his products.
On his website’s “Prediction one week from today” section Ken Ring predicted “snow” for Christchurch today (28th). Not only is there no snow but there’s not even any sleet, hail, rain or clouds to speak of. The Met Office forecast for today is 19 degrees and partly cloudy toward evening (no Moon required).
Given Ring claims to be so amazingly accurate with earthquake predictions how does he explain this amazingly wrong weather prediction? If any Canterbury farmers had paid him for this snow prediction, and had gone to some trouble and expense of moving stock to protect against it, would he have given them a refund?
Ring claims — “The next earthquake-risk time is Oct 1-7” but he won’t specify if that “risk” is for Christchurch, Canterbury, the South Island or even New Zealand. Seems he can only be specific with retrofitted earthquake predictions. Perhaps he should only use this “can’t fail” method for weather predictions as well.
Re 102
Yes there is evidence, maybe you haven’t seen it.
There is plenty of food near the ocean floor. You should just ask a fisherman. Ever heard of bottom feeders? Ever heard of a snapper? That’s one for a start. Ever heard of flounder? Crabs? Crayfish? Guess not. In your world crabs wander around in mid-ocean, without fins or tails. I wonder why fish don’t look like crabs then?
Re 103
Other fish that would get knocked out by shocks would presumably be eaten very quickly by larger predators. I can’t see a cod swallowing a whale, but I suppose even in that you would again find a way of disagreeing with me. But maybe whales with their advanced sonar facilities get disoriented because earthquakes scramble their sonar, maybe they get lost, go to the safety of the surface so they can breathe and the tide washes them in. I am not a whale expert nor an earthquake expert and have never claimed to be.
For moon and earthquakes, Google Moon and earthquakes, thousands of studies, e.g. look for one by Moscow researchers.
Orography means the shape of the land, vs topography which refers to map-making.
Re 104
Yes, it’s strange isn’t it. Perhaps the world is waiting for you Rob to tell them about your bias. I can’t wait to see/hear you on TVNZ and national radio. I was on both this morning when I was approached for my comments on the current situation. But I didn’t hear you being asked for comment. Can you shed light on this?
Re 105, 3
The computer generates the word “snow” when it combines precipitation with subzero minimum. It can equally be frost, ice, cold rain, hail, or snow flurries. I have to sum all that in one word somehow. The minimum temperature for Christchurch was 1C yesterday, same as today. That is what I also had predicted from my database, and what the computer utilised. 1C can be cold enough for ice formation, depending on location. I actually have it set to click in at 2C and below.
Yes, the earthquake risk is for the Christchurch region, that is what the whole article is about.
Ken, I neither believe or disbelieve what you write and predict but I would like to make my mind up. Hence I refer to the following paragraph on your site regarding the prediction of an earthquake.
1. Quote "Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons." (The same reasons being the moon etc as you explain in your article)
Q. 2.2 You say probably — what is the probability factor — 50%, 25%, 90% or what?
Q. 2.3 How do you know that the only east / west fault lines are in Marlborough and N Canterbury and why do you say that when the recent quake in Canterbury was on an unknown east west fault line that had been dormant for 16000 years. Hence there may well be others "undiscovered". You see also looking at a map of known fault lines in New Zealand I can see several more east to west lines in Southland, North Otago, McKenzie Country — some in the Waiarapa, some in Poverty Bay, Central North Island, etc.
Q. 2.4 Having established that there are more east west fault lines outside of the Marlborough and N Canterbury areas, and based on your knowledge of nodes, latitudes, longitudes, perigees, lunar equinox , moon positioning, moon shots, sun spots, which region that has east west fault lines would be more vulnerable on the 20 March — Marlborough, North Canterbury, McKenzie Country, Southland, Poverty Bay, Wairapa, or Central North Island and why?
Q. 2.5 Which of the above areas is in the narrower band of latitude you refer to and what is the longitude?
Q. 3.2 There are four types of crustal block movements that can occur along faults in an earthquake — normal, reverse, sinistral strike slip and dextral strike slip. From a moonshot straight through the centre of the earth targeting New Zealand perspective — which type of fault do you think would be more vulnerable taking into account all the factors you have published on your site re the prediction of the 20 March 2011 event?
Q 3.3 Please provide a definition of what a "moon shot" is.
Ken, you say you have hundreds of worshipping emails and that farming groups year after year ask you back to lie to them, sorry, I mean talk to them. So what? You confuse blind belief with evidence. Santa Claus gets far more emails from believers than you do, and they flock to his public appearances, so does that mean belief in Santa is justified too? As Anatole France said "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
And we did not "rubbish" Sara, only your beliefs. And do you truly think we are denying people's feelings? Don't be so stupid. What we are suspicious of is the interpretation people give their feelings. If someone says 'I feel I'm possessed by demons' or 'I feel I can sense people's chakras' or 'I feel that I've lived before' or 'I feel I can predict earthquakes', we challenge these feelings and ask for evidence. Contrary to you, we aren't swayed by feelings.
Again you say 'I am not a whale expert', but again you contradict yourself by then telling us how whales are affected by earthquakes. You say that 'Other fish that would get knocked out by shocks would presumably be eaten very quickly by larger predators'. But the larger predators — the whales etc — are also 'knocked out' remember, floating on the surface, so not eating. You then say 'But maybe whales with their advanced sonar facilities get disoriented because earthquakes scramble their sonar, maybe they get lost, go to the safety of the surface so they can breathe and the tide washes them in'. Not all whales have 'advanced sonar facilities', but for those that do, in what way would a short earthquake 'scramble their sonar' Ken? And why would a powerful whale be overcome by the force of the tide, when again, everything smaller isn't affected? Your ignorance is just generating bullshit Ken.
You also argue that 'Orography means the shape of the land'. Who wrote your dictionary, another tenth century astrologer? Just put 'Orography definition' into Google Ken and read the first few hits.
And once again you resort to lies: 'YOU may not like me because you deal with weather service companies who find my work competes with their own, so you have a bias based on your own profit'. Still too gutless to go to a lawyer or the media with your accusations aren't you Ken? And our website is free Ken, it is only you that has a profit to worry about.
You insist that 'I will never stand in the way of someone with a theory that is different to mine'. Then be a man of your word Ken and let us get on with promulgating a 'theory' that is different to yours. To parrot your sentiments, 'this is a democracy and… we are all allowed a free voice. You don't have to listen. I don't expect everyone to embrace what I am saying'. Or are these only empty words on your part Ken?
Dave
1. Quote "Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons." (The same reasons being the moon etc as you explain in your article)
All forecasting is about potential, based on known factors. In nature there are plenty of unknowns, that we haven’t discovered yet. We are not gods. That is why causality is just down to opinions and cannot ever be proven. The climate change argument is a case in point. Even if global warming was true, it is impossible to say humans would be the cause. I would never put certainty and a natural event in the same sentence, except as a verbal expression in the context of opinion.
Because moon at lunar equinox appears to activate east/west faults and moon at stitial colure to activate north/south faults. There is a force perpendicular to the radius vector such as to retard the moon while she goes from syzygy to quadrature and to accelerate her while she goes from quadrature to syzygy. Syzygy is akin to stitial colure, and quadrature to lunar equinox. It means at lunar equinox there is potential for greater horizontal influence.
Q. 2.2 You say probably — what is the probability factor — 50%, 25%, 90% or what?
That is a nonsense question and a waste of my time. If I was to say I probably won’t be able to attend a meeting due to other commitments, it would be absurd to ask for that probability to be quantified. I could say 90% and someone could ask why not 89.99%
Q. 2.3 How do you know that the only east / west fault lines are in Marlborough and N Canterbury
Go to the Geonet website and see it for yourself. That’s who I am quoting.
and why do you say that when the recent quake in Canterbury was on an unknown east west fault line that had been dormant for 16000 years.
Again, as reported by Geonet. Take it up with them, not me.
Hence there may well be others "undiscovered".
Agree!
You see also looking at a map of known fault lines in New Zealand I can see several more east to west lines in Southland, North Otago, McKenzie Country — some in the Waiarapa, some in Poverty Bay, Central North Island, etc.
I haven’t seen that map, I am only going from what Geonet have stated.
Q. 2.4 Having established that there are more east west fault lines outside of the Marlborough and N Canterbury areas, and based on your knowledge of nodes, latitudes, longitudes, perigees, lunar equinox , moon positioning, moon shots, sun spots, which region that has east west fault lines would be more vulnerable on the 20 March — Marlborough, North Canterbury, McKenzie Country, Southland, Poverty Bay, Wairapa, or Central North Island and why?
If there are other E/W fault lines then a potential would exist for them to be at risk. An astrological fix would need to be done for each.
Q. 2.5 Which of the above areas is in the narrower band of latitude you refer to and what is the longitude?
Again, this would need to be calculated.
I think it may be a significant event.
Q. 3.2 There are four types of crustal block movements that can occur along faults in an earthquake — normal, reverse, sinistral strike slip and dextral strike slip. From a moonshot straight through the centre of the earth targeting New Zealand perspective — which type of fault do you think would be more vulnerable taking into account all the factors you have published on your site re the prediction of the 20 March 2011 event?
I have never claimed to be either a geologist or a seismologist. I am only pointing to the timing and suggesting lines of enquiry for those receiving research funding now. There is no way I can devote the time and energy required.
Q 3.3 Please provide a definition of what a "moon shot" is.
In this context, an earthquake strike.
Ken, re your Comments #103, you tried to make clear your view that 'ideas should be challenged all the time'. Well, that's what Rob was doing, and what we're doing Ken, so you should be happy, things are working as you want them to. You insist that '[ideas] must first be allowed into the marketplace'. Your ideas are in the marketplace Ken, or have you forgotten your books, website and media promotions? So again, things are actually working as you think they should.
But you then insist that '[ideas] should be embraced even by ardent sceptics'. That's rubbish. Skeptics can not be expected to blindly embrace new ideas, that would be contrary to what being a skeptic actually means. Imagine some moron saying that the world is flat, and a skeptic immediately replying, Yes I'll embrace that idea. It's gullible people that immediately embrace new, unproven ideas, not skeptics. It sounds as though you're just inventing definitions again Ken.
You then proclaim that 'The marketplace itself will decide which ideas go forward'. Bullshit. The marketplace doesn't decide on matters of knowledge and science Ken, only on the likes of ice cream flavours and women's fashion. The marketplace doesn't get to vote on whether quarks exist or the moon is made of green cheese, and only people like yourself actually think this is how scientific knowledge is arrived at — put an idea out into the marketplace and see if the man on the street buys it. There will always be people buying horoscopes, Bibles, healing crystals and your weather almanacs, but don't fool yourself that these deluded souls get to decide which ideas best explain the universe.
Obviously aimed at us, you then declare that 'The market place doesn't need to be protected from itself by those who think they know better than to give it free reign'. It's amazing, and a little humbling, how much power and influence you think we have over your position in the marketplace Ken. And a little strange that you still choose to abuse and insult us, since we seemingly have it in our power to affect your destiny.
You finished by expressing a sentiment close to our hearts as well: 'I exposed what I did because I was out to show how we can be led astray by others telling us what to think'. And that's our motivation as well Ken, only it's you we are exposing for leading people astray by telling them what to think about the moon, astrology and the weather.
Thanks Ken. Check the GS Science web map re active fault lines and you'll see other east west ones dotted around. It's a different site than GEONET. I'd love to know why you "think" the earthquake you predict for the 20th March at midday will be a significant event — so do many others. Alas we may never know. Unless you back up why you "think" this predicted event could be significant people would be entitled to be left with the view that such a prediction is alarmist with little basis. You have written, it could be another one for the history books and in response to my question your answer has merely been saying a similar thing in different words — tell the public why you think that the predicted earthquake at midday on the 20th March as a result of the moonshot (earthquake) will be a significant event. It is not an unreasonable question to ask of a writer who has published such a prediction. Opinion is when you state something based on the beliefs that you hold or the knowledge you have or the expertise and qualifications you have to give an opinion. You have given an opinion that you think it will be a significant event — but not why. You didn't back up your opinion. Rather than blindly state that you think it will be a significant event — tell us why.
I stumbled across Ken Ring’s site when a friend posted his Canterbury earthquake article on Facebook. I’d heard of this guy before but only in second-hand info. I did work for a music promoter who based his timing of the event on the Almanac (which proved to be a failure, the event I was involved with was exceptionally cold, grey and drizzly). I noticed one of his free forecasts “one week from today” (I’m not paying 11 dollars for a stab in the dark, thanks!)… I got a bit excited when I read snow was forecast for the 28th. Well, not only did we not get snow, we didn’t get sleet, hail, rain or even drizzle. Just some moderate cloud later on that toasty day!
I notice he’s totally avoided Tony’s comment regarding this Sept 28th failure. I’ve marked next Wednesday 6th Oct as another snowy candidate so will be looking out for that. Considering the lengthy coverage of these predictive failures I just read on this site, I don’t have much confidence.
I’ve overheard people talking about “that weather prediction guy” at work and have been setting people straight on this business and will continue to do so until his theories bare some fruit worth paying attention to.
I am not telling anyone what to think. They can take or leave my theories, buy or not buy my books and forecasts.
I have no interest in directing people’s choices.
You do.
You are telling people what to think about my ideas.
Are you really not able to see that?
Ken, we've already debunked your accusation that we're telling people what to think (and yet you're not!?). You have a very short memory and just keep trotting out the same silly insults. You say that you 'have no interest in directing people's choices'. And yet you write books, articles, travel the world and beg to promote your views in the media. Why do you do this if not to direct people to your view of how the world works? People have a choice of believing modern meteorology or your astrology predictions, and also your anti-climate change views or mainstream views. You are constantly and actively trying to direct their choice towards your views, so don't bleat on that you're not doing this. To use your oft-repeated phrase: 'Are you really not able to see that?'
Just as you continue to speak out against climate change proponents because you believe they are mistaken, ignorant and corrupt, we will continue to make known our views regarding your ideas, as long as we think they are complete nonsense. And you've done nothing to convince us that they aren't complete nonsense. Your predictions keep failing on a grand scale, you refuse to provide evidence, and instead regale us with urban myths, lies, superstitions gleaned from centuries old astrology texts, and worthless testimonials from illiterate farmers and New Age nutters.
If we've reduced you to tears over our disbelieving stance then buy another box of tissues.
Now re comment #109, what's this nonsense: 'All forecasting is about potential… That is why causality is just down to opinions and cannot ever be proven'? You appear to confuse causality with prediction. Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. What causes the ocean tides Ken? What causes an eclipse? What causes an apple to fall? What causes rain, snow and wind? We thought you reckoned you knew what caused all these things — Newton's 'astrological' gravity? Now you're insisting that gravity and its effects is just an opinion, and it can never be proven to be the cause? So it could be gremlins or gods after all, is that what you're saying? If you re-entered the 21st century Ken you'd discover that we do know the causes of much of what happens in nature, including the weather. Contrary to your opinions, angry gods do not throw lightning, and drizzle is not the sneeze of a god with the flu. Yet again your ignorance has merely produced another pseudoscientific statement that only fools those like yourself mired in primitive nonsense.
And taking this stance you're even admitting that your take on climate change is just an opinion and that you have no proof. Finally something we agree on!
Dave:
"tell the public why you think that the predicted earthquake at midday on the 20th March as a result of the moonshot (earthquake) will be a significant event. It is not an unreasonable question to ask of a writer who has published such a prediction. You have given an opinion that you think it will be a significant event — but not why. You didn't back up your opinion. Rather than blindly state that you think it will be a significant event — tell us why."
I have done so extensively in this article, first posted on 7 September.
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home
Anonymous-4:
"snow was forecast for the 28th"
I’ve explained that my computer interprets 1C minimum as frost/ or potential for snow, provided other factors. Minimums did register 1C in Christchurch that day, so a successful forecast (from two years away)
SB:
"you have no proof"
You keep calling for proof of my theories, without which you claim they must be invalid. You must know that in science there is no proof. Only a religion claims irrefutability.
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
All evidence is selective. Those who purchase my products have found enough to satisfy them that the moon method of longrange forecasting works for them and saves them money. The critics find evidence that doesn’t work. It is selective because in the same breath the latter do not similarly attack other weather services for inaccuracy.
Ken Ring — “The 1-7 October was warned of a month ago as an earthquake-risk period. On 1 October Christchurch district received 17 shakes.” — I can’t find any record of “17 shakes” for the whole of New Zealand on the 1st let alone the Christchurch district. I also can’t see that the 1st was substantially any more earthquake active than any other day during this aftershock period.
Here is what Ring actually said (bolding mine) — “There may be earthquakes at these times, there is potential. We don't know how far down they'll be if they do arrive, that's two ifs down the track. We can't tell where will be the most at risk” — Ring obviously doesn’t know the difference between guessing and predicting. He does know however how to turn guessing in to retrofitted predictions using exaggerations and lies.
Earthquakes are more common in New Zealand than most people realise. Before the “Christchurch” quake (actually Darfield) there were 33 quakes in August (largest 4.5) http://lists.geonet.org.nz/pipermail/eqnews/2010-August/thread.html and in July there were 36 quakes (largest 5.3) http://lists.geonet.org.nz/pipermail/eqnews/2010-July/thread.html. Seems around 30-40 quakes a month are quite normal for NZ.
Ring is blatantly scaremongering to take advantage of peoples fear induced vulnerabilities following a natural disaster. He’s no better than the lying, cheating Sensing Murder scumbags.
Hi, No Ken, the minimum for Christchurch was not 1 degree as you state, it was 11. Check metservice. The next day was minimum of 7, not 1 degree as you stated also. You have this week very wrong in your almanac, it's going to be a lovely sunny week, not low pressure like you have been saying.
You're being picky Ken. One minute you don't know what 'theory' means in a scientific sense, and continue to refer to it in a layman's sense, now you suddenly revert to a strict scientific definition of the word 'proof'. We both know that by 'proof' I am referring to convincing evidence and reasons that would suggest that your astrological method of weather and earthquake prediction has a high probability of being correct. We have never asked you to prove your claims in the strict sense that you are now implying, since you are quite right, it is impossible.
Let us also quote from the website that you quoted from — 'Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method':
Also,
And why didn't you quote this statement while you were at it:
And we see you are up to your old plagiarism tricks again Ken, passing off the second last paragraph that began: 'In truth, science can never establish…', as your own words, when it fact it was stolen from that article as well. And you want people to trust you.
As for insisting that your snow forecast for Christchurch on the 28th was successful when in fact it was a nice day with no precipitation, this just demonstrates how wrong your forecasts are and how devious you are in trying to hide your innumerable errors. If your forecasts can't differentiate between 'frost, ice, cold rain, hail, or snow flurries' and a nice, warm, dry day, then they are absolutely worthless, and a scam of the highest order since you are charging people for these worthless forecasts.
And we see you are up to your old plagiarism tricks again Ken, passing off the second last paragraph that began: 'In truth, science can never establish…', as your own words, when it fact it was stolen from that article as well
No, it wasn’t my own words, the whole posting was of quotes of others. The second paragraph follows the first. Nice try.
As for insisting that your snow forecast for Christchurch on the 28th was successful when in fact it was a nice day with no precipitation, this just demonstrates how wrong your forecasts are and how devious you are in trying to hide your innumerable errors
But there was a low of 1C. See attached and scroll down to 24-Hour Observations to 9am. And there was forecast for precipitation within 24-hrs, see under Tomorrow 29 Sept. So my forecast was directly in line with Metservice.com. What on earth is wrong with you people?
Tony
It was 17 on 1 October, then rose to 19 in a later report. Another 19 on 2 October, and 11 so far on 3 October.
They can be counted here. Ref: http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeList/
You can see the renewed clustering here
Ken, your 'whole posting' was NOT 'quotes of others'. We believe the first paragraph to us was penned by you, and was not the last paragraph also your original work? We only suspected the second last paragraph was not yours because it appeared too erudite. The quotes from Popper, Feynman, Russell and Einstein were clearly marked as quotes, but that second last paragraph was not. Readers had no way of knowing that this was not your work. We have already had this out with you previously, and you agreed to clearly show whose work you were copying, but it seems you have regressed.
Regarding the weather for the 28th Sep, you predicted snow Ken. We don't care what the min temp was, it was a fine day with no snow, or even any rain. We also don't care if your 'forecast was directly in line with Metservice.com' or with your local witch, it was obviously WRONG! You ask 'What on earth is wrong with you people?' Well Ken, when you say snow, we expect snow. Is it too much to ask for your predictions to match the actual weather? Surely that's the purpose of forecasts? Our annoyance revolves around the fact that your forecasts are bullshit. And you seem surprised at our unwillingness to put up with your bogus weather guesses and your fanciful explanations as to how they might be forced to match reality, if only they were viewed from a great distance while hidden under a blanket of nonsensical excuses.
The moon affects a motherload of water a little bit and causes tides because it is really fluid — affecting the bonds and crystaline structures of rock takes far more than the piddly gravity of the... moon. Try parting water with your hand... easy — Try parting a rock with your hand ...ouch. There are land tides but only a few cms and they are gradual bulges over many hundreds of kms not fracturing targeted influences.
[Some questions for Ken Ring]
Scientists know where "most" earthquakes are likely to occur but not when, but in some predictions you have made you have given date, times and regional locations (Canterbury 1 to 7 October being an example) being both where and when. It has been claimed that you predicted the main earthquake in Canterbury in September.
Thus, have you forwarded your methods of predicting earthquakes to the United States National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, (NEPEC) or the International Association Of Seismology and Physics of Earths Interior. These two organisations evaluate earthquake prediction methods. They are not disbelievers of Earthquake prediction other wise they wouldn't exist to evaluate. They merely test and confirm the method or otherwise. Imagine how many lives could be saved if there was accurate earthquake prediction. Equally imagine how much anxiety and stress can be caused by inaccurate long term predictions. Hence these organisations serve a very valid purpose in my view.
There are three key steps to testing proposals / prediction methods. (They also measure predictive capability to validate models as opposed to random chance theory)
1. The specifics of the method of prediction are documented so that others can reproduce the predictions using the same data input. Of course the uncertainties must also be documented.
2. Earthquake predictors also need to set up a formal system in which predictions are made in real time not after the event.
3. Finally after a period of time an evaluation will be made of the number of successes, failures, false alarms that the method has produced as opposed to random coincidence.
Your prediction of an earthquake risk on the 20th March is in your own words this:
20th March 2011 (date) just before noon (time) as the South Island is in big earthquake risk there will be a moon shot (earthquake in your words) targeting New Zealand which will probably be an east west fault line failure of which the only ones in New Zealand are in Marlborough and North Canterbury (Location) and it could be another for the history books (magnitude). Now whilst you say you can't state probability you have told me "that it could be another one for the history book" means you think it "will be a significant event." I infer a bit of a probability factor there Ken.
But I do believe the long term earthquake risk forecast of the 20th March may be the type of prediction that would be of interest to the two agencies I have mentioned and given that this is predicted in March there is a lot of time available for you to not only forward this prediction and the basis on which it is made but also to apply the same methodology and predict further ones in New Zealand — say 12 months ahead from now so that the agencies have sufficient sampling to evaluate the methodology, and success rates.
If you do this, the one thing I would suggest is that you don't use the recent Canterbury Earthquake to illustrate prediction. Doing so could muddy the waters a tad. A clean sheet would be ideal as there will be no after shock influence and 20th March is an ideal starting point as it seems it will be a new quake if the prediction is correct.
The reason I say that is that the scientists told us very early in the piece that we could expect aftershocks which would continue for weeks and even months in Canterbury as the earth settles after the main shock. Aftershocks are merely a natural follow on from main shocks. We have had well over a thousand quakes since September 4th and they will be on going for some time. It's a gimme that there be more and there is a site that graphs the numbers of quakes by time of day and has all sorts of data that can be interpreted. If the moon effect played a part in the main shock then the aftershocks are merely a natural consequence of the initial event — and anyone could quite safely say that further quakes (aftershocks) will follow. If the moons effect did not play a part in the main shock then the aftershocks would still be a natural consequence of the main event. Predicting aftershocks is of no value because they will happen anyway. Predicting the main shock — that's what counts. The focus of evaluation has to be the 20th March and beyond.
Ken I have read many research papers re the moon and earthquakes and the most favourable conclusion I have found re moons effect on causing earthquakes is this:
Dave
Thanks for your post. I repeat I am not an earthquake expert nor seismologist. I have no interest in being recognised as one, so see no reason to devote a considerable amount of time and resources to prepare and solidify a case to the UN or any other body, with no guarantee of a fair hearing, judging from mainstream science’s longheld bias against anything lunar, stemming from Christianity’s paganising and satanising the older sciences. Who would fund me for such an exercise? How would I live and pay bills during the preparation of it?
I have issued pointers for salaried geologists to follow if they so choose. I have no doubt one day someone will win the Nobel Prize for “discovering” that the moon creates weather and earthquakes, and that this can be predicted in advance. These international prizes are political stunts anyway, or Obama, Al Gore, Yasser Arafat and others who have not advanced the world one iota wouldn’t have received them.
My understanding of the land tide is that it is significant and 8-50cms per day, see Australian Aviation Manual. The molten-core tide is documented and is a separate study. The atmospheric tide literature needs updating — there was a lot printed around 1939 when BBC engineers found it affected shortwave broadcasts.
Just because science has less inclination to publish this sort of research currently, doesn’t invalidate it. At the back of my book Predicting Weather By The Moon I list 30 university research papers and numerous books, all on lunar weather and lunar tide studies. The work has been done but is gathering dust on shelves in back rooms.
I have pointed out before that the mathematics of the moon’s gravitation is poorly understood and wrong in many cases. The moon pulls along more than it pulls up, which is why most earthquakes occur when the moon is on the horizon. However, apples don’t fall along, which is what Newton tried to explain. He differentiated between gravitation and force corridors of planets. I think it is a mistake to apply the maths of one discipline to try to determine the dynamics and the mechanics of another, when different variables and a whole host of new unknowns are present.
Besides which, science isn’t science anymore, now that they have abandoned the null hypothesis and look instead for consensus. It has relegated science to the status of religion. Therefore what is considered scientific today is merely peer-review of mates helping mates, what is studied is a function of who supplies funding and why, and what is published is just what gives market political leverage. It would be great if it was otherwise, but time to me is precious and I am not going to take the issue of science ethics on. It is very much corrupted in this country. One day science will again be in a mood to be open-minded enough to consider alternative theories. If I am still around then I will be delighted. Meanwhile I do what I can in the hope that at least some of it is helpful to the livelhoods of those who choose to embrace it.
In life all coats don’t fit everybody, and some choose different attire. But no one person can self-decide what others should wear.
Ken, some comments on your reply to Dave. Again you go on about 'mainstream science's longheld bias against anything lunar'. What nonsense. Do you think Newton was just some crank that dabbled in astrology in his kitchen like you do? Newton was mainstream science, and all the modern facts (not the bogus stuff) you quote about the moon and tides and gravity were determined by mainstream science. And what about the moon landing Ken? Was that all a hoax due to 'science's longheld bias against anything lunar'?
You say, 'I repeat I am not an earthquake expert nor seismologist. I have no interest in being recognised as one'. Then shut up Ken and stop claiming that you can predict them. Especially when further on you state that 'I have pointed out before that the mathematics of the moon's gravitation is poorly understood and wrong in many cases'. So once again you insist you know more about gravitation than does modern science, and that Newton's view of gravity is still superior to Einstein's. Sounds like you do think you're an expert. It's amazing what they must have taught you at clown college.
You continue with, 'Besides which, science isn't science anymore,… It has [been] relegated… to the status of religion… merely peer-review of mates helping mates... It is very much corrupted'. That's right Ken, astrologers like yourself are the only people doing real science these days and we have you to thank for our modern, advanced society. Next you'll be insisting that astrologers invented the internet, cell phones, antibiotics, MRI scanners, and the lunar rovers. Oh I forgot, that was a hoax wasn't it? Why would scientists want to go to the moon when they had a religion to invent and choir boys to molest?
You dream that one day science will consider astrology as a valid theory and hope that you'll still be alive when it happens. Hell will freeze over before that happens Ken, and since Hell is as much a fantasy as astrology, this means never. Prepare yourself for a major disappointment Ken.
I'm pretty much done with trying to educate KR. He doesn't seem to be coming up with anything new to debunk and anyone searching for Ken Ring should now be able to make an educated decision about his claims.
I do, however, have to take exception to the following:
"Unless he went back to doing magic tricks for school kids. Pretty sad."
Also, many of my close personal friends are clowns and many of them are very intelligent (some are even skeptical and rational).
I've noticed that despite Ken stating "I repeat I am not an earthquake expert nor seismologist. I have no interest in being recognised as one", the predictions still appear on his site.
I've been following them and upon looking back on early October I have to say they're no better than what I would expect by somebody just taking a stab in the dark. Just about anybody living here could safely claim there'll be an aftershock somewhere between XX.XXam and XX.XXpm on any given day. Of particular note is the prediction that the 8th of Oct would be a "quiet day" — in reality we had six aftershocks. The rest is neither here nor there and not of much use, but like watching psychics — it's been entertaining nonetheless.
You're right Nick, observing Ken and his silly proclamations is just like watching psychics, and while we learn nothing new, it is entertaining.
Ken, thank you for your response to #126. I would be interested in your response to the following re your 20th March Earthquake statement that I have been questioning you about.
I am asking a very valid question here which is — do you
The reason I ask this is for clarity — we can clearly distinguish between all three. We can do this by distinguishing the differences between the meaning of earthquake prediction, forecast and potential. These are not my definitions but ones used in the scientific, theory evaluation and academic fields, so that criteria can be defined.
An earthquake prediction specifies the location, time, and magnitude of an impending earthquake. If a predicted earthquake occurs exactly within the parameters of the prediction, it is considered successful. If an earthquake does not occur at all, the prediction is considered a "false alarm." If an earthquake occurs within another region but outside of the specific parameters defined by the prediction, it is considered a "failure to predict."
An earthquake forecast is composed of the same three components — location, time, and magnitude but is probabilistic, and thus has some likelihood of occurrence that is less than 100% but more than 1% and can incorporate uncertainty in all 3 of the parameters. An earthquake forecast can be thought of in much the same way as a hurricane forecast, which indicates the likelihood of a certain strength of event (for example, a Category 3 hurricane) within a certain time window (such as the next 24 hours), but does not guarantee that the event will occur.
An Earthquake Potential can be a restatement of a well understood long-term geologic earthquake hazard, or state further earthquakes could occur after a main shock or is so broad and vague that it is fulfilled by typical background seismic activity that is already known or happening, an example being earthquake clustering.
Within the three definitions I have provided I do not believe you have predicted an earthquake or forecast an earthquake. You have provided the positioning of the moon and nodes and other moon related data in respect of your theories, but have not shown in my opinion whether any seismic activity is coincidental, circumstantial or directly related to your moon theory.
In respect of the 20th March event, in my view, it is neither a prediction or a forecast and if something does happen on that date would you claim you predicted it or forecast it or merely stated it as a potential? You said in answer to a question of mine some weeks ago on this site you wouldn't even give a probability factor which essentially is above 1% but less than 100% of this event happening. I asked you the question, as I didn't know whether you were predicting, forecasting or stating a potential. Based on your assertion that "it could be one for the history books" which you qualified as meaning you think it could be a significant event, (but in answer to my post querying this you didn't tell us why you thought that and have still not responded) readers of that comment would be entitled to believe that the risk was greater than a potential given these words.
"All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. (You have stated a date and time and the word "should" infers likely)
This will probably be an east/west faultline event this time (the word probably is used but you won't give a probability factor but you do use the word event).
It could be another for the history books."
When I asked you for a probability factor you tell me "that is a nonsense question and a waste of my time."
Ken I was only asking a logical question based on your posting.
Why I have entered into discussions on this site is quite simple. Your statement about the 20th March 2011 event caused considerable consternation with people I know in Christchurch who were at that time getting to grips with an event (that you didn't predict within the definition provided) but which has had an enormous influence on their lives and attitudes. Whilst I don't place any reliance on what you stated, others did — some of them elderly. Some people I know were believing of it.
Ken I am not a scientist, just a layman, but I have sympathy for scientists when pseudo scientists, psychics and others claim to predict earthquakes. The problem scientists have with this is if an unscientific prediction is made, scientists can not readily state that the predicted or forecast earthquake will not occur, because an event could possibly occur by chance on the predicted date, though there is no reason to think that the predicted date is more likely than any other day. Earthquake predictions should state where, when, how big, and how probable the predicted event is, and why the prediction is made. Forecasts should give at least a probability factor. You don't do that — you merely state potentials based on your moon and astrology theories. Anyone can say something could "potentially happen".
Scientists are in a damned if I do and damned if I don't position. Indeed if I threw a dart at a dart board aiming for the bulls eye and hit the triple twenty — I could claim that that I was aiming for the triple twenty and claim success.
If you are going to do further postings re your earthquake theories then I believe some modification of expression is required. I say that because in response to my questions re validation of earthquake prediction, your answers to me clearly indicate that is not a road you have gone down — yet the uninformed reading your 20th March prediction could be entitled to think that it is a road you have been down.
Dave, it is a road I have been down. I am not funded and am not prepared to put in the hours required. A minute by minute analysis is what it takes, looking at all planetary angles and where they focus on the globe. This, around the clock. I did it once, as I said, and it was very successful, so much so that the media showed much interest, yet they did not know it took me about 3 days before I went public but won’t do it again. I did it to satisfy myself it could be done. A computer programme is required, astrologically-based and with fault lines loaded.
As to your other points, some are word quibbles. All forecasting, predicting etc is in the realm of potential, because it is scientifically impossible to claim causality from sequence. I, like other experimenters, am aiming for usefulness in everything I do. Some find it so, that’s great, I do it with glad heart for them. Others find it not so, well, they needn’t read my work. I have much thank you mail from Canterburians for my ongoing article
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home because it seems to have allayed some fears. Are you saying they are all misled, because you happen to find me less than credible? If you or anyone questions my right to publish on my own website then I ask who elected you or anyone else the spokesperson for clarity, usefulness or credibility? It is as silly a belief and as smugly high-minded as those that set up and run this website.
in this web site..........has anybody else noticed that the apostrophy is in the wrong place..............reader's comments. it's plural, so its readers' [or even no apostrophy ! ] reader's is singular, meaning the comments of the reader !!! we all have our own 'silly' beliefs and who knows, he may be right. and in any case, i believe, and it's proved again and again......nobody can full predict what 'mother nature' will do next.
Thanks for pointing out that punctuation error Ann. We aren't perfect and have always said that we are happy to correct errors if people point them out. We are pleased that it is evidently the only error that you noticed, especially nothing concerning our criticism of Ken Ring's forecasting claims. And since you, like us we should add, like to write correctly, we should point out that 'apostrophy' is spelt with an e, not a y. Also, in your phrase "it's plural, so its readers' ", the second "its" should also have an apostrophe. It's so easy for little errors to slip in, isn't it? And we agree with you, no one has been able to confidently predict what nature will do next, especially not Ken Ring.
A curious thing about science:
In "What Is This Thing called Science", by R.F. Chalmers, one learns that the theory that "the Earth orbits the Sun", proposed by Nicholas Copernicus, was "falsified" (to use a term from philosopher Karl R. Popper), by the failure to detect any parallax of nearby stars. If the Earth went around the Sun, it was predicted that the positions of the nearby stars would shift a little as compared to the positions of the far-away stars, when comparing observations taken 6 months apart. No parallax was found, thus "proving" that the Earth did not orbit the Sun.
However, the assumed distance of the near-by stars turned out to be an erroneous assumption. The nearby stars were further away than had been thought. The parallax effect was much smaller, and after 300 years equipment existed that allowed the small parallax to be detected.
This is one of the examples R.F. Chalmers gives of potential problems in the "falsification" method of testing scientific theories. The assumptions upon which the testing in based may be in error.
How then does science progress? A new technology is at least in some way "proven" simply by it working...? I seem to recall R.F. Chalmers concludes that "increasing freedom" is the test of (so-called) "science". Thinking- a more accurate view of Nature allows more freedom- more alternatives?
Now here is a curious thing, a person by the name of Richard Stafford (Physicist I read), noted that to believe that a blue dot on a screen in a physics lab represents "the magnetic moment of an electron", requires believing in a long chain of explanation. He also noted that
when you look up a word in a dictionary, you are given more words; when you look up those words, you are given still more words, until- (like the song "there's a hole in my bucket"?) you seem to be going around in circles (or I would say: refer to other matches of patterns). He tried to figure out a view of physics/Nature based on as few assumptions as possible (he did assume mathematics though).
He called his paper "Foundations of Physical Reality", and he got close approximations to famous physics equations like Shrodinger;'s equations. He concluded that physics is a method of cataloguing information (like the Dewey decimal system in the library). He found that science (physics) appears to be "a made-up story", and that "quantum electro dynamics" was about "the assignment of definitions".
According to John Hospers, in "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis"; things are explained in terms of other things. When you run out of "other things" in terms of which to do the explaining, you get "ultimate explanation": things just ARE. he also writes how difficult it can be to define simple everyday objects *(like "chair"). To define an "elephant", he notes that just pointing to an elephant and saying "this", may be too narrow (what about all the other elephants)(i.e. is it still an elephant if it looks like this but is at another place, or if it is a woolly mammoth so looks roughly like this)(I don't think this method is necessarily too bad a way though seems practical); however saying "an elephant is something that has four legs" is considered "too broad"- what about other things with four legs that are not elephants?
I gave R. Stafford's paper to a mathematician, who agreed with me that underneath the maths it was about this broadening and narrowing- about categories (e.g. "things with 4 legs") and intersecting categories (e.g. "things with 4 legs" intersecting with "things with large ears").
(curiously, It seems possible that Mark MaCutcheon's "Final Theory" may be a mirror image of "the theory final" (foundations of physical reality"))
Richard P. Feynman wrote a book for ordinary readers called "QED The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter", in which he describes what physicists actually do, with regard to "the most accurate theory known to science", called "quantum electro dynamics".
He describes it as "adding little arrows on a piece of paper", as "Nobody understands it" (but they know how to do the process). He also describes it as "ridiculous".
They work out "every way an event can happen" at the sub-atomic level (basic processes being: (1) an electron goes from "A" to "B"; (2) a photon goes from "A" to "B"; (3) an electron emits or absorbs a photon). For each "way an event can happen", an arrow, like a vector, is drawn. This is called "a probability amplitude" (I could call this "a 50-50 width", and since "50-50" is "width" (or a unknown third (or more) view of the situation (or imaginary source)(a bob each way implies an observer who has "a bob each way"), so "50-50 width" would be "width width", or "two (potential) observers", or implicit communication (or a juggling of all other points of view into an imaginary matrix or differentiation vis-a-vis the two poles of the two (or more) imaginary observers (who each COULD "have a bob each way" )).
Each arrow in QED has a length and a direction. The arrows are added head-to-tail (like vectors), with a mix of amplifying and reducing overall direction/length to get "a final arrow", which is "squared" to give a "probability of the (sub-atomic) event. The theory is said to be the most accurate theory known to science.
In my view, the "final arrow" is already : "a square" (a neutral ground" re: all the different 50-50 widths (or the different ways of polarising the space into 2-d), i.e. it is a "final theory" or "4" (or parameter bundling-unbundling of the event)- a "non-event" of the event (hence the (postulated) "event' MUST have "happened" (in some manner or ?) for this description to apply (the "event" must have some past or future- i.e. be "charged" (or biased) in some way (this is potentially relevant to understanding the feedback channels that may occur with analysing events via small residual biases- even the perhaps small effect of gravitational pull on earthquakes (or the weather)).
When one squares this "final arrow", this "residual error" or tilted-perspective (in some way) of the event, one is "squaring a square" - it (is apparently) "all tied up" (or all also let loose?)- it must have "happened and 'not happened' at the same time- it is (supposedly here) 'perfectly folded' (through itself)- the "event' becomes un-seen except via reference to other or more distant objects or activity.
The event then has "natural parallax" (or is "Riemannian": its only "factors" are "itself and one" because "itself" (namely "an event that (supposedly 'happened') is "one" (a singular past-future or space-time differential- a (constant) difference between space (room) and 'time' ("anywhere within limits" (like a clock or swing of a pendulum))) .
It is (apparently) "always seen from (at least) two (or more)"
It is "space as if a solid object" A way of 'navigating (around) space...
The method "quantum electro dynamics" (or "meeting generalisation room to move") does not "predict subatomic events" but simply "space neutralises them" (so they are 'neither here nor there'- they become "explained" in-so-far-as they become "(re) normalised" (connected back to other before (or after?) events (or matter) ...?
Hence "re-normalisation" "saves QED mathematically" (allows the scientists to "make sense of the numbers" (allows the numbers to "pass through each other"- allows scientists to 'space compute the numbers' (find the room the numbers have with regard to each other (so allow (apparent) assignment of the numbers into groups (?)
Statistical bias interferometry- this phrase comes to mind
this is in fact what Ken Ring is (really) doing?
He is looking for (and ocassionally finding?) "quantum bypasses in the information" (in e.g. old weather map data (interference fringes)) - i.e. finding "slippage" in the way the data interacts (with itself)- finding (some?) places where the data "grips" to other more-long-term factors (like planetary gravity allignment ) ?
He "predicts weather' (but doesn't (yet) know properly how to "predict climate"?
His "weather forecasts" are micro "climate forecasts" (they have (relatively) high statistical improbability
(by now factorising out the moon (re-normalising the predictions twice (or more???) in "real-time", he can obtain a "weather-climate "prediction' (or (near) "perfect" "forecast" (?) within the limits of the (known) parameters (he can apply the new forecasts to real-time in the-vicinity raw weather data (farmers do this anyway) so resulting in a truly practical method of "forecasting the (local) weather" (i.e. by base "interference "triangulation" " (by testing a / the theory against known local situation and coming up with a locally-altered bias solution (or how climate (may) effect the weather today (how long term effects can result in short-term fluctuation(s) ?????
Which is actually traditional met-service technique!!!!!!
(the theory is that Ken Ring is successful re: farmers as they instinctively know how to "read his forecasts" and adjust to local knowledge to produce a level of insight into short-term forecasts that farmers find useful even if nobody understands (till now?) how or why his forecasts still seem useful to especially farmers?)
(Incidentally, I found if I wrote out what "logic" is, I got the patterns in QED: I also found a method for analysing information: comparing and matching patterns in 2 or more dimensions; which appears to be the inverse of Edward de Bono's "lateral thinking', i.e. "direct thinking" -instead of trying to "make sense' of words/concepts chucked together, one starts with a phrase or science puzzle that already "makes sense", then finds common ground between the e.g. first two words/concepts in the phrase or problem (after simplifying often dramatically to typically to "minimum defining characteristics"), then differentiate the now two aspects on the common ground (by usually 1 step only (for idea of hopefully maximum freedom of interaction between the concepts); giving one a together-apart view of the two words/concepts; then add this to a third word/concept and repeat the 'find common ground, then differentiate by usually 1 step only" process, to get a new "free association view of the by now 3 words/concepts; continuing till the whole phrase is considered and now in "free association space", so still can make sense (but doesn't have to, so can potentially make different sense, allowing any uncertainties in the phrase or problem to be more easily seen in the context of the patterns so-far found in the phrase or problem), so giving one "room to move" in going new places )
Alan
Alan, some expert (Richard Feynman?) once said, if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you obviously don't. I don't pretend to grasp the complexities of relativistic quantum field theories such as QED or QCD or the electroweak theory etc. Some of what you say I understand, but much I do not. However I don't believe Ken Ring's weather prediction method has anything to do with utilizing the mathematics of quantum mechanics or renormalisation. The very basis of his method is the force of gravity, the one force that quantum mechanics ignores in its calculations.
I've just completed a series of emails with Ken Ring regarding his weather predictions. His first emails were reasonably rational, but rapidly degenerate into cliché, stereotype and mantra... more worthy of Leighton Smith. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and refuses to acknowledge any argument other than his own. I initially emailed him seeking comment on the independent report on NIWA's temperature readings, which climate change deniers were convinced were artificially manipulated. Needless to say the report cleared NIWA, but Ken was still convinced NIWA was wrong etc etc.
I'm amazed that so many people give Ring an easy ride. For example, he was interviewed by Jim Mora on Radio National, and was treated very respectfully and with due reverence. He's also been interviewed by Leighton Smith, who introduced Ring as a 'weather expert'. I'd love to see someone like yourself go head to head with him in some public forum… even Campbell Live! I also forwarded my exchange to NIWA. Hopefully they're doing the rounds there.
Keep up the good work.
Here are my emails and Ken Rings responses:
From: Ian
Those who accused Niwa of misinformation - like yourself and Leighton Smith - should now front up and admit you got it wrong.
What is NIWA's new supercomputer doing, sitting on its hands? $42m did not foresee the September cold, the lambs dying and this great pre-Xmas drought-breaking rain (yet I did, all three, from two years away, with only a shitty old laptop)!
Because then listen to what, on 30 November, I said on the above programme, and it was "a lot of rain between 10th -16th", I said "yes, a drought-breaker, 4 or 5 days of it, something to plan for." Exactly what has happened, and the stuff hasn't stopped falling yet, and looks like continuing until next week..
So in the ongoing battle of the longrange weatherforecasters, between me and NIWA, in which NIWA consistently claim that my method is useless whilst they have all the answers, who got it correct? It's not the first time this has happened.
You might also like to ask NIWA what La Nina really means, because on 1 December, James Renwick of NIWA in a press statement said La Nina meant hot, drought, high pressure systems covering the country, and on 8 December NIWA, in another press statement said La Nina meant torrential rain, the likes of which have not been seen for 21 years. That's longrange forecasting, a bob each way?
I have consistently called for a public debate between me and NIWA. They won't have it on, yet they are both ever-happy to spout on complete rubbish about what they think lies ahead, even missing completely what is just a week away. This does farmers a huge disservice, because if they plan around their press releases, they will be well up the proverbial garden path.
I admit I don't have all the answers, no one does, but when they state categorically that the weather is a random process, then why even say anything? Surely someone who believes that would never in their right mind go there? It would be like issuing a press release about how much money you will walk home with, before entering a casino.
Fair's fair.
NIWA controlled the review themselves by their own admission, approached their equivalent Australian counterparts in a show of objectivity, and published the results of the review themselves, because they control the media ear when it comes to matters of the environment. The sceptics have no newspapers, no bottomless government coffers. A bigger kangaroo court was never before witnessed, aided by the government supporter Wayne Mapp. NIWA say it was an independent report. Ha ha, your naïveté is appalling!
That you have completely ignored the points I made illustrates the exact point. They are unanswerable proof that NIWA is fraudulent, because the moment science is brought into any discussion NIWA is found wanting. Even when it comes to producing an independent inquiry they lack knowledge of experimental design, instead operating politically. Do you really think they would come up with a report favourable to their critics??
Their foolish report has played into the skeptics' hands because now more than ever the sceptics have greater grounds for claiming NIWA are tax-fund wasting cheats. Their days are numbered..
So if you are to salvage any intellectual dignity, explain to me how NIWA's procedures are robust, without referring to their self-referenced, self-examined, self-parametered and self-exoneratory review.. Because so far all the report shows is that desperation drove NIWA to such behaviour, proving that the sceptics were right..
You appear to live in a world dominated by deception and state funded conspiracy, where only the minority (yourself )
have the luxury of the truth.
It is not science to shift a thermometer further up a hill, do an adjustment downward with what someone thinks the differential should be, and re-present it as an unbroken record that concludes a result that is politically favourable to the government that pays your wages.
It is not science to take a result that points out flaws in your data-gathering vs your conclusions, and redesign an experiment that will come up with an alternative result more in keeping with what your ongoing funding requires.
Real science is keeping all variables the same and changing one of them. Like retaining a data-gathering location with all the original thermometric equipment, and purely observing temperature changes. That this was transgressed means NIWA are not scientists but fraudsters. Unless you are a scientist I don't think you can see this.
I have addressed what NIWA openly admitted they did, to further falsify data. You just want to stop me talking. Address my points about the science. The thing is, you are unable to. I assure you I am science-trained, at the University of Otago and Auckland . I did 3 years and 9 units of physics, chemistry and zoology for a science degree before I switched to arts. But that won't be enough for you. There will be some fault in that, because you are intent on personal attack.
You are, however, entitled to your beliefs no matter what degree of qualification. In my experience however, you are not a man who accepts criticism or even objective comment very positively. In my opinion, you are in total denial of any belief that falls outside your own, no matter what evidence is provided.
Have a good night
PS. You really do believe the Bush administration engineered 9/11 don't you?
I accept any discussion based on science, but you refuse to take part. Despite my university background, which I did not feel was any business of Silly Beliefs or anyone else and so did not divulge it fully, and although I spent 4 years fulltime and a final year part time at university still question what credentials have to do with anything. What credentials did Al Gore have again..remind me. Or Galileo? Or Jesus Christ? Or Mother Theresa? Or the many many writers, humanitarians, explorers, and others who are so-called experts in their fields and who have made a difference..Or any of our NIWA scientists with regard to lunar science? What degree did Sir Edmund Hilary have? Are you actually capable of reasoned discussion? Genuine question.
And this is the second time you have mentioned 9/11. I have never ever spoken of it. You have some fixation there, right down to telling me what I believe, which is news to me! Unless you wish to discuss ideas, rather than personalities, kindly desist this abusive correspondence.
'Fascists blog'? Here we go again. Such response (stereotyping, categorising, generalising) is more suited to ratings driven talkback than to someone who prides himself on being intelligent and knowledgeable. What's so 'fascist' about a site which comprehensively questions your beliefs? Is everything on the site 'fascist', or just the material that challenges you?
I only questioned your university background, as your first email commented I wouldn't understand, as I'm not a scientist. This begs the question, are you? This is why your credentials are important. If you are not a scientist, according to your logic, you don't understand either.
Al Gore? No scientific credentials what so ever. He was not espousing his own research, however. He was conveying a message he strongly believed in, based on the research of others. He never claimed any personal scientific qualifications… unlike yourself I have to say. Jesus Christ? Illiterate, from an illiterate family. I guess however, when you start telling uneducated, poor, downtrodden people that you have all the answers, they'll listen. He had a bit of help from his dad. 'Jesus Christ SOG' (Son of god) carries a bit more weight amongst peasants than 'Jesus Christ MSc'. Incidently, I'm impressed you felt comfortable comparing yourself to the likes of Gore, Christ etc.
Am I capable of reasoned discussion? I have to say, yes I am. I have a university degree, I read extensively, I have an open mind on most issues and I'm not a scientist. I try to avoid stereotyping those whose views are at variance with mine, and would never say they have a 'jackbooted mentality' because they visited a website which criticised my beliefs. (I was looking for a site that endorsed through close examination your views, but there wasn't one)
9/11? Yes, out of left field. Just curious. Thought it may fit your belief patterns.
A bully is the one who starts a fight. You did, you'll recall I didn't email you first. A fascist thug kicks the person, targets the person, using the name. He does not discuss the merits of the belief in a calm academic environment. He sets up a kicking yard in an alley and hides behind a mask, in the case of SB a website kicking yard wearing the mask of nom de plume, but the behaviour of the KKK was exactly the same.. Kick, break and wreak havoc behind masks because of intolerance of other ideas. You have used the same tactic. I have yet to see a scientific argument from you, only vitriol how fraudulent I am in your eyes.
I told you I have a university background, I have even tutored there, but it seems still not enough for you because you keep pursuing this. I did not compare myself to Galileo etc, at no stage did I say I was like them. If you cannot put aside your ant-Ken Ring sentiments, please leave me alone. I am too busy trying to help genuine people at a difficult time, people who are using my methods successfully, to bother with justifying my existence to the determinedly close-minded.
You still have not provided evidence to your boast that NIWA are exonerated, except NIWA's own assessment. Are you going to continue the red herrings instead of addressing this?
Hi Ian, thanks very much for your emails to and from Ken Ring. What can we say, the man is an idiot, a liar, a paranoid delusional scammer and conspiracy theorist. On the bright side, his attempts to defend his 'lunar science' always keep us amused. As you say, he starts off quite rational and polite but as soon as you question his method or talk about evidence, then Dr Jekyll leaves the room and Mr Hyde takes over.
Calling this website a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi' is his most longwinded insult yet, and it is quite clear who is actually feeling the emotion of hate.
Like you Ian I was amazed that Ring was arrogant enough to liken himself to Galileo, Jesus, Mother Teresa etc. Al Gore yes, a person with no science qualifications speaking out on the climate debate, but these others just show how highly Ring thinks of himself and his mission in life. As you said, Ring was questioning your ability to understand the debate if you weren't a scientist, but couldn't see that that must also apply to him. I don't know whether he's stupid enough to believe his arguments or just thinks everyone else will.
Regarding the science degree, we have noted that Ring has claimed that 'I have had 9 years of university science training' which he has changed of late to 'I have three years of university science units'. Surely you would remember how long you were at university? In emails to you he claimed that 'I did 3 years and 9 units of physics, chemistry and zoology'. Yet not an hour later he then claimed that he 'spent 4 years fulltime and a final year part time at university'. Was it 9 years, 4 and a bit years or 3 years? This inability to keep his story consistent smacks of fabrication. Along the same fraudulent lines, he also told you that he did 'physics, chemistry and zoology for a science degree', and yet back in 2000 when asked about his 'scientific credentials', Ring replied that he took 'psychology and anthropology at university'. There are lies afoot. And as we detail on our website, Ring's grasp of even basic science is abysmal. All we know for sure is that if Ring even went to university, he failed to obtain a degree in either science or the arts.
And you're quite right, there simply doesn't appear to be a single pro-Ring website that supports Ken Ring and his method with reasoned argument. There are untold numbers supporting Creationism and psychics and alien abduction, but none supporting Ken. Another government conspiracy perhaps?
And again Ring claims successful predictions that he never made, confident that no one will check his almanac: 'What is NIWA's new supercomputer doing, sitting on its hands? $42m did not foresee the September cold, the lambs dying… (yet I did… from two years away, with only a shitty old laptop)!' We have already pointed out to Ring in Comment #85 above that he completely missed the extreme weather in September when snow caused the collapse of the 10 million dollar Southland Stadium, and the entire country was racked with vicious storms and floods. Any fool can talk about predictions made after the event.
Thanks for sharing Ring's delusional outburst with us. Everything he says just convinces us more that what he does is a scam.
Ken Ring is at it again.
Here's a link to the actual weather results for December. I'm planning to wait for a few weeks to see how off the mark he is in January.
So far he has missed by miles. December was not even near wetter than average, and was in fact substantially dryer than average. 18 days of rain? Not even close. He did say "may be" though, not "will be", so i guess in his twisted manner of reinterpretation he got it right.
Thanks for your comments Mike and your links. And you're right of course. Ring uses very vague and ambiguous statements — might be, maybe, could be, dry and/or wet — and then after the event pretends that he was certain all along, that he actually said 'would be' and 'will be'.
And when he's way out with his predictions, he actually claims more than a day either side: 'You should allow up to a week. You may think that is unreasonable, but this is longrange forecasting… You have to have a point of focus, which is the day or so that I specify, but it is not that important and I don't fret too much if I am out by a few days.' And he not only wants a large window in time but also in space: 'there is huge potential for rain overshoot. Sometimes it may rain at sea and miss the land altogether. But if it is within 50 miles I would call it a successful forecast'. How could any sane person claim they're making accurate predictions if they're a week and/or 50 miles out? They couldn't. You'd have to be a delusional astrologer.
And yes, Ring insists he can't predict the amount of rainfall, and yet talks about showers or heavy falls, which is describing the amount that will fall. As you say, he wants it both ways, so no matter what happens, one of his many contradictory statements will match reality.
For your website discussion on Ken Ring. I suspect it is a complete waste of time trying to get him to acknowledge any errors in his thinking, but what the heck.
From Ken Ring on 18 Dec 2010:
OK then, here is a point of science for you to discuss. You have claimed that:
Yes Carol, it is pretty much a waste of time trying to get Ken Ring to acknowledge his errors, but as you realise, it is important to point out to others that are prepared to think and weigh up the evidence that most of RIng's claims are just nonsense designed to fool the gullible.
Hi John. It's interesting how his affability disappears when anyone challenges him and he starts using accusations such as 'jackbooted fascist' and more. I think the real scandal is that he gets such a free ride in most media. I'd love to see Kim Hill interview him :-). Good on NZ Geographic for giving him a hard time too.
I was interested to see that he claims that government departments use his services. From his website:
Keep up the good work.
Hi Carol, unfortunately most media would, and do, promote witches and brothels if there is a dollar in it for them. They run horoscopes solely because they are paid to, and will continue to give Ring a free ride as long as he pays them or he brings in listeners. They are not about promoting the truth.
Thanks for that snippet about DOC etc using his services. I hadn’t noticed that. I can understand why the Santa Parade folk might be interested in the weather, by why the Warehouse or the BBQ Factory? They sell BBQs, not run them. I’ll try contacting a few of the places and see if they are prepared to admit to their use of Ring. In the past he claimed that two ski companies in Central Otago used his services so I emailed them. One didn’t reply but the other denied any connection with Ring, so like you I don’t trust him. We're updating our Ring page at present so it would be interesting to add their response, if any, especially the likes of DOC.
Ken Ring says that the moon is a planet.
In the discussions area under moon man/sun man, facebook page is Christchurch Quake Live:
Yes, he's not too bright is our Ken. We've noticed him call the moon a planet several times now. First we thought it was just a mistake, but after being corrected he still insists on saying it is a planet rather than a satellite. If you use his stupid logic, then even you are a planet since you also orbit the sun.
Ken is an astrologer, and in ancient times astrologers called all the five visible planets, the sun and the moon planets. Planet means 'wanderer', since they moved and the stars didn't. Ken has great difficulty in accepting that modern astronomy has replaced astrology.
He keeps saying he's an expert in these matters, yet silly nonsense like this just shows that Ken is stuck in the distant past.
Ian, after reading all this ,,,, who's the absolute fool now !
I think you are a silly lot on sillybeliefs.com ... people who work within square and cannot see outside the square ... myopic and I would say calling someone a liar among other things is slander. Ken Ring forewarned of yesterday's earthquake over two weeks ago and in connection with the full moon - he forewarned of the earthquake in September and forewarns of the likelihood of earthquakes in March. If pioneers, scientists and explorers in the past had been silly enough to work within the square that you silly, silly people do we would still be in the ice age now ... it's a pity that you climate changers don't do something more than say the farting of sheep is causing global warming ... global warming, ha, ha, what a myth. We've had ice ages and global warming way before the sheep were farting. Give yourself a colonic irrigation and sip your green tea and then try to do something worthwhile than these silly blogs.
Ken Ring did NOT predict the Sept Christchurch earthquake (see here), nor did he predict yesterday's one. And even if he appeared to, since Sept 4 the Christchurch region has had over 4,400 earthquakes, so any idiot could safely predict that they may well have more. But the embarrassing fact is that Ring himself did NOT expect there to be another major earthquake in Christchurch. In the months following the Sept earthquake and leading up the Feb quake, this is what Ring predicted:
Update 13 October... Therefore it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place.
I would still not consider that another massive earthquake is certain, in fact I think it’s more likely not to be the case in Christchurch. I can only repeat that other well-known earthquakes in NZ’s history have not, as a rule revisited the same site.
For another disastrous event, Christchurch may or may not be in the firing line again; it could be Wellington or anywhere, and it may not even happen.
The numbers of shakes do seem to be getting less and the distances greater between clusters. People are at last adjusting.
...my guess is that these aftershocks will end soon for Christchurch, probably around the end of November.
it is reasonable to relax and asume that another devastating shake is unlikely to repeat anytime soon, despite a seismology-department knee-jerk reaction that a 6+ mag. earthquake aftershock could be arriving in the district at any time.
Nothing is achieved by the so-called earthquake experts warning of ever-impending doom, which may be an ongoing exercise in damage control to cover-up performance embarrassment. To proclaim afterwards that more and bigger shakes were to come [is a] distraction... perhaps they should admit to that, rather than make more claims about future events to come
There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur...
it will take a long time to get over that fright in the middle of that early September night.
It indicates the Christchurch shake is not part of some lasting new development, reaffirming that the activity of the past couple of days has probably been just remnants of general global disturbance due to the recent lunar eclipse... In a day or so things should be back to normal... Please share this article if you think there could be anxieties in your social circle.
You're correct that last year Ring does predict disaster for March 2011:
there may be an extreme event, perhaps a large earthquake, around 20 March, which is when the Moon may be again in a trigger position.
it is again more likely than not that a significant shake may affect the South Island in March next year.
More recently (Feb 14?) his website made the following statement and also the following tweet:
'Potential earthquake time for the planet between 15th-25th, especially 18th for Christchurch, +/- about 3 days.'
Even if Ring did appear to predict two or three of the Christchurch earthquakes (which he didn't), the question has to be asked, why did he have no idea about the other four and a half thousand that also happened? If his method can reliably predict earthquakes, Ring should have warned us of most, if not all of them. Predicting only 3 out of 4,400 is a success rate of 0.07%. Would you go under the knife of a surgeon where only 3 out of 4,400 patients had survived his operations?
It is also rather ironic that you accuse us, supporters of reason and science, of being myopic, while you embrace an astrologer, a man pushing ancient beliefs that for centuries kept society mired not in an ice age but the dark ages. And for the record, it is only people like Ring and yourself that believe the farting of sheep is causing global warming. A little science would tell you that their belching is the problem, not farting, no matter how much you may giggle over things anal, eg your love of colonic irrigation while drinking green tea.
The fact remains that Ring has made as many successful predictions as the 'Sensing Murder' psychics have solved murder cases. None whatsoever.
Just when you thought he couldn't get any stupider, Ken is now casting doubt on plate tectonic theory. FFS.
http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=337&type=home
I had just read that article a little before we got your comment Carol. The trouble with Ring is that, like creationists who reject evolution, he must blindly reject all scientific theories that purport to explain the same things that he does with his 'astrological science'. If plate tectonics explain earthquakes then his moon theory is wrong, so Ring reaches the only obvious conclusion, plate tectonics must be wrong instead. That would have to be one of the most ridiculous of Ring's articles, and clearly shows his pseudoscience style. He quotes and obviously believes various scientific facts while calling these same scientists incompetent and stupid. And his sunburnt arm, china plate and Hiroshima bomb analogies are laughable, but then Ring has never been good at analogies. Indicative of his flawed knowledge, Ring states: 'Imagine an H-bomb the size of that which destroyed Hiroshima...'. It wasn't an H-bomb, it was an A-bomb. There's a big difference, both in size and physics. This is a typical Ring statement, he's simply not concerned with facts or accuracy. He simply weaves nonsense to fool the gullible, invents conspiracies and throws out vague predictions in the hope that one will hit paydirt.
If a major earthquake does occur on March 20th as Ring predicts, then he will need to explain why his method couldn't predict any of the nearly four and half thousand that have occurred around Christchurch since Sept 2010. And not only that, but why his vindictive moon only caused earthquakes in Christchurch and failed to have any impact in other regions. Unfortunately many people put unwarranted importance on a single fluke while ignoring thousands of failures.
As a Christchurch resident I am incredibly tired of having the fears of my friends and family exploited by these predictions. Thank you for providing me with sound arguments against Ken Ring's claims and logic against these scare tactics.
Thanks Hayley, and you're quite right, Ring's bogus earthquake predictions are only adding to people's fears, and doing nothing whatsoever to help. In the past his claims to predict earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and whale strandings received little attention, even by Ring himself, but thanks to some in the media, his false claim to have predicted the Christchurch Sept 2010 earthquake has caused him to spend much more time scaring the vulnerable in Christchurch. All in a selfish bid to raise his profile and sell his silly weather almanac. Inventing a bogus explanation as to why the earthquakes occurred helps no one. Perhaps Ring should donate a percentage of the profits from his books to the relief effort if he really wants to make a difference.
Hi John, I read through much of your article on Ken Ring and then some of the subsequent readers comments. I didn't read them all so i don't know if my point has been raised.
Ken is fundamentally wrong on his theories about gravity and the moons influence on the earth.
Ken claims that the moon sucks the water causing the tides. This is wrong because as you rightly point out it's an extremely weak force.
What happens is that the moon subtly shifts the center of gravity of the earth towards the moon causing the oceans to bulge out towards the moon.
I know you will all understand this but thought i would write anyway. It's what i would have said to Ken to highlight his lack of understanding.
As a note, his latest post, (Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa) is very funny. I'm a geologist and Ken doesn't understand the basics of earthquakes and tectonics. Brilliant
Personally we think it is a waste of time saying anything to Ken 'to highlight his lack of understanding'. His business only exists because of his lack of understanding, and you're right that Ken does appear to often botch the description of gravity and the tides. To be fair though, in his book 'The Lunar Code' he does correctly describe the tidal forces, mentioning that, unknown to many, that not only is there a high tide under the moon, but also on the opposite side of the earth at the same time, and he even notes that the tidal bulge is actually dragged ahead of the moon's position in the sky. However we've also found that when Ring's writing makes scientific sense there is a good possibility that he has stolen it from some other source and he has since forgotten what it said, or perhaps never fully understood it in the first place. For example, Ring claims the following: '[If the Moon were to be destroyed then] life on Earth would be impossible because there would only be atmosphere on the Sun side of the Earth. There would be no water, just one big stationary cloud'. This shows that Ring doesn't realise that there should be tidal bulges (or clouds) on both sides of the earth if this nonsense claim of his were true. Evidence that the knowledge of tides in his book was not his and that he didn't grasp its implications. [Update: Sure enough, we have since found that the text on tides from Ring's book was simply taken from the internet, and that it probably came originally from this article 'Earth Moon Mechanics'.] The fact is that it's not only gravity, tides and plate tectonics that Ring doesn't understand, the list could well be endless.
Ok, have scanned your web site and as skeptic enjoy debate and Silly beliefs does make it all look like pseudo babble. That I understand. But this is the bit I want to know is where are your guys forecasts ? and are the CHCH earthquakes just good luck on Ken’s part?, and there is no correlation between earth, moon ,sun and tide? Is it entirely un reasonable to think that molten magma may slosh about and pressure crusty earth? I don’t recall any one other than Jules Verne taking a journey to the center of the earth and as a fact no one has. So just like the treatment for TB was to put patients in the cold and ice we have a geological view of what happens with out any one really accurately knowing. Who can contest science when there isn’t alternatives? That could be considered a silly belief with the benefit of hind sight. We know that putting TB patients on ice was not good for the patients health at all. And as a university trained and graduated historian I kept records of Ken’s published ramblings you may call them, yet they seemed to be accurate. Or is it like a fortune teller where the punter associates suggestion with experience? I’m not letting you have that one ! Or does it make sense to provide for the future as humanity has done for centuries by observing seasons ,but not moons ?Dunkirk invasion relied on a moonless night and that was forecast and prepared for months in advance. So in good humor I’m glad you guys exist and hold beliefs silly or otherwise to account. May be the primitive man in me has been exposed since living through these earthquakes.
Lindsay, you ask 'where are your guys forecasts?' What makes you think we are earthquake forecasters? That's what Ring claims to do, not us. Only deluded Ken Ring thinks that we are in competition with him. We're simply showing that Ring's claims are bogus, we are not out to show that we can do a better job at prediction, indeed we argue that longrange weather prediction is unrealistic. This challenge that we should offer forecasts or keep quiet is as silly as psychics demanding that we show we can glean more info from the dead than they can, otherwise shut up. Everyone is entitled to challenge someone's claims or skills without first proving they can do better. Would you let an incompetent surgeon continue to botch operation after operation, just because someone said, 'Well, could you do any better?'
You also ask, 'are the CHCH earthquakes just good luck on Ken’s part?, and there is no correlation between earth, moon ,sun and tide?'. We wouldn't call predicting zero earthquakes out of nearly 4,500 quakes good luck, bad luck more likely, as even guessing should have given Ken more success than that. Even if one grants the three hits that Ken falsely claims, 3 out of 4,500 is still absolutely pathetic, and demonstrates that Ring is just guessing, and very badly. And yes there will be a gravitational influence from the sun and moon, just as an insect hitting a car's windscreen does slow it down slightly, but the influence is a minor factor rather than the major one, and not one that Ring can predict. And we do have alternatives to science, such as Ken's pseudoscience and religious, paranormal beliefs etc, but none have the reliability or success at describing the natural world that science does. If Ken could provide evidence that his method worked then the world would flock to his door, but remember that he is on record stating that he has not proven his method, and indeed insists that it can not be proven. You say that you have 'kept records of Ken’s published ramblings you may call them, yet they seemed to be accurate'. Funny you should say that when Ken himself says, when challenged to do so, that his accuracy rate is impossible to determine. Anyone that insists in the media that their method works, yet at the same time says they can't prove it or produce supporting evidence, needs to go back to the drawing board. Ring's point regarding earthquakes and tides is not ridiculous, but like everyone else, he needs to produce evidence before people should throw money at him. We demand evidence that new planes, new drugs and cell phone towers are safe and work as claimed, why do we let Ring get by without the same scrutiny?
Ken Ring predicted an earthquake on the 20th March at around midday. He said "it could be another one for the history books" He did not say Christchurch but he did say South Island. He did say an east west faultline or was it west east faultline. No matter, we got the day, time and direction, a pretty specific statement for 20 March. On Tuesday we had this catastrophic, tragic and sad quake in Christchurch where I live. Another one for the history books. Now Ken did not predict Tuesday's event. He may claim it fell within a new moon or full moon or whatever. I sincerely hope he does not claim he predicted it. I believe it was part of the aftershock sequence and the scientists told us months ago that a 7 mag quake could be followed at some point by a 6 mag aftershock but they couldn't say when or where - and we have just experienced it. They said it could be days, weeks or months down the track and they were right. Now heres the rub. When Ring's 20th March prediction/forecast/guess or what ever it was came out AFTER the 4 September event, many people I know took note of that - and believed it. Now those people are saying that we still have another one to go and it could be worse. Whilst Ring didn't say it would be Christchurch, people who have been through two traumatic events have in their minds that either the alpine fault will go or we will have another one here because the Greendale fault is an east west faultline or vice versa. They were relying on 20th March and bang its February!!!!
I need to tell you that I know two people who are leaving Christchurch in the belief we will have another hit on the 20th March. I know others who can't but wish to. I was having afternoon tea at work today with some brave people who work in the business where I work and they are extremely worried about 20th March following Tuesdays events. My daughter dropped me off some things yesterday and she was worried about it. My bowling club mates know about the 20th March. My son is in the police and he knows about it. What I'm saying is that word has spread amongst many people here and it has just adds to their anxiety, particularly since Ring didn't predict this one. Oh he may say things about sun spots, the moon etc between the 18th and 24th but nothing specific. One person may have read what he wrote on his site about 20th March but it only takes one person to read it and word spreads, but as word spreads what was originally written may be exaggerated. The truth depreciates with repetition hence the danger in what he wrote. My point - for that very reason it is very dangerous to write what he did. His web site is a public site and yes he is entitled to write what he wishes. He has to realise that millions of people can access that. He needs to be responsible.
I congratulate Silly Beliefs on your post number 147. Everything with Ring is "it could be", "possibly may be", and he is defensive when you debate with him on certain points. I am of the firm opinion that Ring needs to put his money where his mouth is re science and scientists and his theories, and New Zealanders, particularly Cantabrians, need to hear it. We need a debate in the public arena - TV is best - we need two, Sunday and Fair Go. Or will we be giving Ring more exposure.
I will start taking steps to arrange it. So Ken will you be prepared to partake on a debate with scientists on TV on your moon earthquake theories and predictions? It needs to be done.
Inviting Ken to defend his claims on TV is like inviting a vampire into the sunlight. They both fear the certain outcome, and thus continue to lurk in the shadows, finding foolish victims where they may.
I have been looking at the Ken Ring "stuff" and it just seems like crap.
Can I ask Ken Ring why my cup of coffee is not moving across my desk as I type this. And Ken I live in Chch so don't give me any crap reply. If, as you state, the moon and now Jupiter and Saturn influence the earth etc etc (new theory coming) then why does my drink stay still. Or are the "forces" at work selective???
Sorry if someone has asked this already.
And another thing Ken. Get your ass down here in Chch and start living some of these quakes.
Last year Ring confidently gave this prediction for the future of the Christchurch quakes:
I have been doing a lot of research in the last 6 months regarding the “so called” 2012 Mayan prophecy and have found out a lot of information about mainstream science. I am not attempting to endorse Ken Ring or Silly Beliefs, but merely present what I have found so far as it relates to the moon/gravity debate, if you want to call it that.
The development of science comes from theories, which on one hand is believed and backed by a group of scientists (in this example we will call the mainstream) and then there are the other scientists (which I will call the dissenting voices). As long as the mainstream has monopoly on current theory then they do not actively listen to the dissenting voices until eventually they have no choice and concede that the data the dissenting scientists present can no longer be ignored.
The main thing that happens with theories is the fact that they are sold to such a degree (research grants, University appoinments etc) that the larger body of mainstream scientists have developed entire careers on said theories. Which is easier? Debunk the dissenting voices or give up your career??? I know what which path most take, the others that agree with the dissenting voices generally don’t have a job for long. This is, in fact bad for scientific advance.
Let me see, the biggest advances we have had in scientific history come from those dissenting voices that were labelled mad men. Tesla, Copernicus, Galileo just to mention a few.
In my view (from the research I have done and there are scientists who are backing this idea against the mainstream and who are not being listened to) the magnetic field of sun is doing some really strange things that we have not seen before in recorded history (Greenies will hate me for saying this) and the sun is not just warming up this planet, but also all of the other planets in the solar system (wait a minute, there are two rovers on mars. They must be warming Mars up. I think not.). We know so little about the magnetic fields of the sun, Jupiter and how our own planet interacts with these fields. Come to think of it, Einstein’s own relativity theory is just that, a theory.
We actually know nothing about the gravitational and magnetic effects of other bodies in the solar system and to no lesser of an extent other bodies in our galaxy on our planet that no one on this planet has any authority to debunk theories purely based on other theories however flimsy or solid they may appear to be. All theories should actively be discussed and only when all of the data, and or our knowledge improves, can theories be categorically proven or disproven.
The main problem with a lot of mainstream science is the fact that they do not collaborate across other disciplines. For example archaeologists, geologists and astronomers. If these disciplines had communicated with each other then we would have known ages ago how old some of the most well known ancient sites really were. I will not place arguments here as that is a completely different topic.
Needless to say, with the sun having such an effect across the solar system I think we (the entire earth) are in for one hell of a ride for the next 18 months to 2 years. I apologise for going slightly outside the topic, but the background behind what I am trying to say was relevant.
PS I also believe that we need sceptics, but I give no weight to those that attempt to debunk any theory based on no real evidence and debunk based purely on speculation, this makes some sceptics no better than the scammers out there trying to sell nothing.
And to comment on the “silly beliefs” team about reason and science. Although your belching comment is tongue in cheek. This is also not the reason for global warming. And it was also religion that kept us in the dark ages not ancient beliefs. The ancients new a hell of a lot more than us modern folk about the cycles of the planets, the sun and the stars. Do not confuse this with astrology as the ancients were as scientific as we are now basing their knowledge on observation. Just remember the fact that the Mayans knew about the precession of the equinox. We just forgot to look up when computers came along.
Jason, due to the nature of our website, we guess you won't be surprised that we see no reason to be fearful of the 2012 Mayan prophecy. If you want our take on that prophecy, read this post. Also for the benefit of other readers, regarding your comments on mainstream verses dissenting scientists, lest they infer that this mirrors Ring's conflict we should note that Ring is not a scientist and what he does is not scientific, as he says: 'what I am doing is pre-science' and 'any rigorous scientific assessment of the moon method is just not viable'. It is not a conflict between science and fringe science, between a mainstream scientist and a dissenting scientist, but between science and non-science, as Ring describes it. Ring claims that 'My work… is not intended for the scientific community... I am claiming my method has use and could be explored, but not by scientists… That is why I don't claim that it can be tested and suggest it objectively can't be'. It is not scientists refusing to consider Ring's claims, but Ring himself refusing to engage with scientists, refusing to produce evidence or reasons for scientists to take him seriously. Unlike Copernicus and Galileo that you mentioned, Ring refuses to argue his case with those that he wishes to convince.
Also for the record, Copernicus and Galileo were not really seen as dissenting voices or mad men among the scientific community, only from the viewpoint of religion. But looking at it from another angle, big advances in science have indeed come from radical ideas from scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. They are famous because they challenged contemporary ideas and convinced others that they were right. You do scientists a huge disservice by suggesting that most are moral cowards, in their career solely to earn a buck and toe the party line. Is that what you're doing in your job and your life? If you're not a spineless lackey, why do you believe scientists are, most of whom would have become scientists because of their desire to seek out new knowledge. Scientists strive to find new discoveries and explanations, and Nobel Prizes are awarded to those lucky few who succeed. Scientists are rewarded for revolutionary new ideas, not punished. Scientists aren't ignoring Ring's claims about the moon and weather and earthquakes because they fear it could lead to a Nobel Prize, fame and a superior forecasting system, they reject his claims because the see no evidence to support them. Only Ring sees their refusal to embrace him as an evil conspiracy.
Also you say that 'Einstein’s own relativity theory is just that, a theory'. You appear to confuse the general and scientific use of the term 'theory'. The public says 'theory' to mean guess or hunch or belief, whereas scientists use 'theory' to mean, according to the National Academy of Sciences: 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses'. Where the public would most likely see facts and laws as more robust than theories, scientists place theories at the top, then laws, hypotheses and facts come last. To say relativity is just a theory, or evolution is just a theory, is as misleading as saying the theory of gravity, atomic theory or the germ theory of disease are just theories. You say that 'All theories should actively be discussed and only when all of the data, and or our knowledge improves, can theories be categorically proven or disproven'. As we've already said to Ken on this page (who also views a 'theory' as just another belief), is one belief, one 'theory', really as valid as another? Evolution or creationism, a round earth or a flat earth, a universe billions of years old or only a few thousand, presents delivered by Santa or by parents, insanity caused by mental illness or demons, lost keys just happen or are brought about by gremlins? We hope that you don't accept that these competing 'theories' are equally valid, equally likely to be correct? In each of these examples science has discounted one alternative 'theory' and adopted the one that serves as 'a well-substantiated explanation'. And the state of our knowledge will stay that way until others can produce good evidence and good reasons to revise it. Unsubstantiated beliefs such as Ring's claims have been considered and rejected, not simply ignored. The same with the doom and gloom predictions regarding 2012 or the claims of psychic detectives, if they want to be taken seriously then they must front up with the robust support that scientific theories have, and not just target the ill-informed man on the street.
We also find it a little confusing when you state that 'In my view... and there are scientists who are backing this idea... the magnetic field of sun is doing some really strange things that we have not seen before in recorded history', but you then appear to contradict yourself by insisting that, 'We know so little about the magnetic fields of the sun, Jupiter and how our own planet interacts with these fields' and even, 'We actually know nothing about the gravitational and magnetic effects of other bodies in the solar system'. If science knows nothing about these gravitational and magnetic fields then how is it that you and your dissenting scientists know that they will wreck havoc leading up to 2012? In fact science knows a great deal about the gravitational and magnetic fields of the sun and the planets, having sent spacecraft to many of them to detect if they have magnetic fields and measure its strength if they do. And it is their knowledge of their gravity that allows them to place spacecraft in orbit and also use their gravity to slingshot spacecraft onto other destinations. While there is still much to learn, science knows much more these days than all the ancient civilisations combined ever dreamed of knowing.
Which leads us finally on to your observation: 'And it was also religion that kept us in the dark ages not ancient beliefs'. By ancient beliefs we also include religion, since religion is nothing but ancient beliefs, and that along with the likes of astrology, magic and superstition has slowed our progress throughout the ages. The fact is that most ancients, even most ancient Greeks, were ignorant peasants, and the knowledge of most high school students today would put the ancients to shame, even the philosophers and intellectuals. Much of what the Greeks believed was wrong, although there is no denying that their inquiring minds and skepticism would eventually lead to what we now call science many centuries later. Although just as intelligent as 21st century man, the ancients did not have our knowledge, and contrary to your research, professional scholars do not believe that the Maya had knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes (See here, here and here.)
John and Ken, I have read your entire exchange and wonder why two intelligent men cannot find some common ground on this. John, I suggest that you use your fervent enthusiasm to prove a point to investigate that a new possibility. Could it be that the reason Ken didn't predict this earthquake because it may have been a 'man-made' one. See the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu0Qiq6AhOU
Tony (116) you're right - Sensing Murder forum is no different to this: sceptics on one side, believers on the other ... going round and round; no wonder you're comfortable here! Science versus inner belief will always create tension. Me, I'm truly a believer.
Believer, your suggestion that we can 'find some common ground on this' is no different from suggesting that evolutionists and creationists or mediums and skeptics find some common ground. Either Ring is correct or he's not, either god created life or he didn't, either dead people are chatting with mediums or they're not. There is no middle or common ground where both views are correct and can join forces. Either Ring produces evidence for his claims, which he says he can't, or else he must live with rational, intelligent people giggling at his revelations. If you have indeed read our entire exchange, perhaps you could point out where our criticisms of Ring's claims are flawed and so indicate that we might be mistaken in our view?
Skeptics, scientists, rationalists etc deal in facts and knowledge and evidence whereas believers deal solely in beliefs, what you have when you have no evidence for your ideas. Once you have evidence beliefs become knowledge, and you change from believing things to actually knowing things.
As for your belief that the Christchurch quake was 'man-made', again it is a belief since you have no evidence for this, and frankly the fact that you would even entertain this thought shows that you are right, 'Science versus inner belief will always create tension'. Science seeks truth not desire.
Hi there, I am writing from Otago south of Canterbury in New Zealand. I have 2 brothers, sisters in law and 2 nephews in Christchurch who have survived the recent horrific 6.3 Canterbury Earthquake. I am appalled to hear that Ken Ring (a fellow Kiwi), is using this terrible tragedy to promote his quackery. Also I was disturbed to notice a marked similarity between his predictions of another large quake on 20th March, and a rumor falsely attributed to scientists that has frightened many in Chch, including the traumatized 11yr old boy who was on Campbell Live (TV3) last night. This man needs not only to be less crass and avarice minded, but also to be aware of the effect that spreading these unfounded rumors can have on a terrified public, especially as a lot of people are still quite isolated by lack of electricity and the information resources the rest of us take for granted.
We agree with your comments wholeheartedly Fionna. Ring's greed and insensitivity has contributed nothing valuable, either to minimizing the disaster or recovering from it. His many, many vague predictions saved not one life and his new ones only serve to further traumatize people. And if you think people are now living in fear of March 20th, the really big one — 'It could be another for the history books' — if that doesn't eventuate, Ring has now changed his website prediction to this:
If Ring had predicted either the Sept or Feb earthquake then we should take him seriously, but he didn't, thus his media grabbing tactics are nothing but scaremongering to promote his bogus business. And it's working, at a barbecue last night several people commented on how this Ken Ring guy had correctly predicted the earthquakes and is predicting worse to come. I set them straight. The number of gullible people in society is worrying, people who believe an astrologer over scientists, and empty rumors over evidence. And the media are contributing to the public's ignorance, with one reporter elevating his status with the statement: 'Lunar scientist Ken Ring'. Ring is no more a scientist than is SpongeBob SquarePants, and apparently knows even less science than SpongeBob. Why is there no one in the media, print or TV, that is willing to expose Ring as a fraud?
Surely there is some law against spreading panic in a civil defense emergency?
Help SB Team! I'm in Christchurch and it seems everyone is talking about Ken Ring. When I finally tracked down my 13 year old daughter on the day of the earthquake she told me she was scared and wanted to leave Christchurch because other people had told her that March 20th is the date of the next big one. This was before I realised it was a Ken Ring prediction. Now this afternoon I've heard a friend of a friend talking about the guy who predicted this last earthquake, "He said the 15th to the 25th and it was smack dab in that range". Unfortunately hard data like the fact that there's no association between the position of the moon relative to the earth and earthquakes doesn't seem to get through to people. What can be done to stop Ken Ring?
Jonathan, there is nothing scientifically impossible with Ring's contention that the moon's gravity could at certain times, and no doubt does, increase the stress on earth's tectonic plates and could contribute to the cause of earthquakes, just as each bug that impacts your car's windscreen increases your fuel consumption. But is the moon's influence the major cause of earthquakes as Ring contends, one that can be accurately predicted, or is it just a very minor one that is swamped by other forces? As you say Jonathan, there is no hard data that supports Ring, while there is data that contradicts him (eg. see comments #82 & 83 above).
Ring's claims are turning into urban myths, and gullible people are believing them and repeating them because they sound plausible. One has to analyse his claims to discover that there is no support for them, but unfortunately most people can't be bothered doing that. They hear of his apparent successful predictions, themselves bogus, but never hear of his numerous failures which would show that Ring's predictions are nothing but flukes. As 'Lunar Tick' suggested in comment #156, a TV debate could go some way in exposing Ring, as long as it wasn't run by idiots of the likes that made 'Sensing Murder' etc. The problem is, we believe, that there is no quick knock down to what Ring does, unless you already understand what astrology and tidal forces are all about, in which case you already know it's a scam. A lot of people believe in astrology — the horoscopes aren't in our papers and magazines because no one reads them — and thus you have to spend considerable time just convincing people astrology is bogus before you can even get onto the more complicated differences between gravitational forces and tidal forces. By which time people have already switched channels to watch 'Desperate Housewives' or 'When Animals Attack 3'. People concerned about Ring's scaremongering could try emailing the likes of 'Close-Up' and 'Campbell Live', but it's hard to say which approach they would take and they may just end up promoting him. Many people do say Ring (and psychics etc) shouldn't be believed, but often can't give enough reasons to convince believers to change their minds, so they need to research why Ring talks nonsense, and vocally explain it to others when they sing his praises. Knowledge is power as they say.
What a total waste of time you guys — so many,many words of mockery and derision — no real debate at all, just a very rigid mindset on behalf of the SB team and others. There is pervasive attitude of bring down the heretic!
I went to Ken Ring's website directly after I heard about the quake, and I'm not an avid follower, - and there it was as plain as day — the article written on 14/2 with a window from 15th — 25th. If I lived in Christchurch and had read that in advance I would have used this info to take some precautions (as many did — and have thanked him for it) — and got myself well prepared. Why wouldn't you?
I can't imagine the terror that residents have gone through and I feel for them — but why does Mr Ring's information bring about any more fear than the "expert" (with all his millions of taxpayer funded technology) on TV who said "we didn't see this coming — we couldn't have predicted it — this could go on for two years". For myself and my family I would be more angry and fearful at this comment.
It seems to me that the pattern of the last six months is clear — who cares if some of these patterns were discovered retrospectively? (and I'm not saying they were — I wouldn't have a clue - but I could see how that could happen) Isn't that how discoveries are made for the good of all?
This planet is just a tiny pinprick in a vast universe — we all forget that as we sit at our computers being pedantic. Get up, go outside and look at the night sky — it so amazing and it might help relax you and save you from a catastrophic event within your own body brought about by your pressing need to be right.
Let's all hope 20th March passes by uneventfully and let's just keep an open mind for the future.
To 'Anonymous-9', like 'Believer' of comment #162, you also imply that you have read our argument, our debate, and have determined it worthless. Yet you also don't bother to point out where our criticisms of Ring's claims are flawed and so indicate where we might be mistaken. Why not?
Why would you believe this claim of Ring's: 'Earthquakes again in Christchurch? The 15-25 February window is coming. Watch out around the 18th', but seemingly you wouldn't believe this one: 'my guess is that these aftershocks will end soon for Christchurch, probably around the end of November', or this one: ' There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur', or this one: 'it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place'. A dozen plus predictions by Ring that Christchurch was safe and one that it possibly wasn't. A dozen plus failures are ignored and one apparent success highlighted. And let's remember that the quake didn't happen on the 18th. You say that experts didn't see it coming, and yet as we've already mentioned, even Ring in his ignorance criticised the 'seismology-department knee-jerk reaction that a 6+ mag. earthquake aftershock could be arriving in the district at any time'. The one Ring didn't expect was 6.3.
If you are going to take seriously the patterns that Ring claims to have discovered, then you will be living in fear under your table for the rest of your life. Ring claims that "Big earthquakes usually happen around new moons and full moons, and a week either side'. The new and full moon periods cover two weeks of each month, and 'a week either side' covers the other two. Thus for every month of every year for the rest of your life Ring wants you to be wary of earthquakes. There is not one second of the day, any day, that you shouldn't expect a quake to strike according to Ring's patterns. Ring is making these predictions month in and month out, since the factors that Ring believes causes earthquakes happen every month, but he only publicises the odd one that coincides with a real earthquake, and buries the rest. Do you remember this one:
Evidently to explain our ignorance, you say, 'This planet is just a tiny pinprick in a vast universe… Get up, go outside and look at the night sky…' For the record, I own an astronomical reflecting telescope and it is this interest in astronomy rather than Ring's astrology that helps us expose Ring's errors. It has nothing to do with a 'pressing need to be right', it is simply seeking the truth.
Once again we ask, don't just insult us, just explain why our argument against Ring is flawed. As you say, our article is long, so there must be something you can find fault with. Anything?
Well, John Campbell had a pretty good go at Ken Ring tonight (28th) on Campbell Live. He didn't pull any punches. Pointed out that Ring had
predicted earthquakes on every day in February at one time or another, asked Ring what his scientific credentials were (Ring just tried to smokescreen that one), mentioned that they couldn't find one geologist or seismologist who agreed with Ring's theories. I don't think he could have done much more.
We were surprised to see Ring appear on 'Campbell Live' last night, but he's got books to sell so I guess he has to front even though we also thought he came off badly, especially his refusal to talk about his qualifications. He also lied several times, denying that quotes were his when they clearly were. But whether the viewers believed Ring or Campbell is debatable. I've been told of tweets where viewers thought Campbell treated Ring badly and refused to let him defend himself (read the next comment from a Ring groupie), others where they thought Ring came across as a complete charlatan. The trouble is that you can't settle a debate like this in a few minutes, especially when Ring can just say 'I never said that', to every damaging accusation. John Campbell was obviously not a believer and was clearly exasperated with Ring, and we were pleased that he took a clear stance — Ring is talking nonsense.
Dear Ken Ring.
What a performance tonight on Campbell live.
Greetings from a reader of your book.
Gerrit
Dear Gerrit, please keep your undying love for Ken between yourselves. That said, we hope you have recovered from your traumatic experience of seeing a loved one making a fool out of himself, and that you haven't run out of tissues. Richie McCaw hasn't got any qualifications — Geez!! And frankly, anyone that predicts disasters by believing they come in threes is well suited to be a Ring groupie.
I've just been looking at a cached copy of your excellent expose on Ken Ring. Perhaps you could look at dusting it off in light of the fact that he is trying to profiteer on the back of the Christchurch earthquake? Slimy snakeoil salesman that he is! He received a thorough dressing down on Campbell Live last night!
Thanks Hannah, and we did just by coincidence update and add nine new sections to our Ring article on the date of the Christchurch earthquake. However due to Ring's increased celebrity we're going to shortly add another section dedicated to his claim to predict earthquakes, bringing together the debunking comments we've already made elsewhere.
This must be John Campbells page hahaha
Sorry, but like Ken Ring you are mistaken in your beliefs, and need to do a little more research.
Hello Sillybeliefs team... I have been away from reading Sillybeliefs for a while...(been busy)
Like Ken Ring, I don't have a degree, but unlike him, I don't claim to have studied at University. Ken needs to get some self confidence and to stand by his convictions and not flip flop depending on what what time the moon rises.
I have come back though, because of Ken Rings recent predictions... I first heard about this on the weekend regarding the March 20th date.
He should make some form of agreement, if he is wrong about this date, he will never make dumb predictions again using his fake--scientific method about anything. (Weather, Earthquakes or Lotto numbers).
It's not only his views which are insensitive, but the influence he has over people, who don't always follow logical thought. Take for example Lindsay's comments on the blog:
Surely we should just reply, "Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary proof." Not babling and psycho bable...
You were right to point out in reply to Ken, that no-one ever attacked him for being a clown,... but he seems to be doing it 24 hours a day.
Anyway, I just want to congratulate you guys on your hard work... and if it helps people point out how much of a snake oil salesman Ken Ring is, all the better. It would be funny, if it wasn't based on the emotions of people in a tragic situation already.
Hi, Sorry but aftershocks are not "earthquakes" they are after shocks. You seem intent on debunking him based on failure to predict minor aftershocks.
I haven't been following him re earthquakes but when I lived down south I used him rather than scientific sites to predict weather and he was far, far, far, far more accurate than any scientific weather sources online. Now as much as you will try to say otherwise, that is the case as it happened as I needed long term weather facts at the time.
How can you debunk that when personal experience shows he was more accurate?
We're sorry Brent, but aftershocks are earthquakes. My dictionary defines an aftershock as 'A quake of lesser magnitude, usually one of a series, following a large earthquake in the same area'. Technically this means the Feb 22 quake was an aftershock, but of course aftershocks are still earthquakes. Ring predicts earthquakes, he does not differentiate between earthquakes and aftershocks, except to explain after-the-fact why his predictions fail.
Our personal experience shows that Ring is wildly inaccurate, in everything he predicts. You say that you have proven that Ring's weather forecasts are 'far, far, far, far more accurate than any scientific weather sources online', and yet Ring himself denies this. Ring insists that regarding his method, 'I never claim I am more accurate than the metservice…', and that '[my method] won't stand the kind of rigid day-by-day analysis of daily forecasting' and ' my business, cannot be proven'. Rather than trying to convince us of Ring's accuracy, perhaps you should be debating with him instead?
Hello, I've been watching his website closely
The other day he had on his site the dates and times of events that where going to happen. This included the 27th Feb, 5th March, 19 March, 20 March, 17 April and 18th April.
He makes note of times and predicts between Hanmer and Amberly for the epicentre of the March earthquake.
Note: he stated "our pick". Working with more than one person ah !!
I have sent a screen shot to verify this to Silly Beliefs.
Now there was no significant activity for the 27th Feb. 13 3's and 11 2's from the Canterbury Quake site that gets its data from Geonet.
Down on the 26th and as of yet a couple of 4's for today with 3's as well. Nothing out of the unexpected as of yet. Touch wood.
The thing is today (28th) he has changed this page again. No longer has these times (dates only) and has taken away his prediction of between Hanmer and Amberly for the epicentre of the March earthquake.
Now if you are doing the maths right, and he has stated in the pass that you can forecast these things as the data is known. i.e the moon's orbit, planet alignments etc, then why is this data changed again. His he doing the maths wrong or is he not so confident??
So NO increased activity for the 27th Feb.
Next update on the 5th March. (of course that may change as Kenny boy changes his mind.)
Yes Rex, you've got to hide those mistakes to make your 'predictions' look good.
I've had many years of fun debunking the "moon landing hoax", Scientology, astrology and other farcical and wacky beliefs. Reading your site is the source of much amusement and sanity. A big thank you.
You may be interested to know that NewstalkZB was talking about the Campbell Live story where they interviewed Ken Moon (28 Feb). NewstalkZB (Christchurch) briefly mentioned the interview this morning. I txt'd them with your website. I hope they read it out to the listeners.
People like Ken Ring aren't just silly — they are dangerous. Why do I say dangerous?
Point1:
Point2:
Thank you for your site. PS — "Palmistry for Cats"? Oh my God!
You're quite right Richard, we're being dragged back into the dark ages, surrounded by ignorant medieval peasants carrying cell phones who receive predictions from an astrologer. And they then spread these myths, doing far more harm than good. People are spreading these fears through ignorance, but Ring is doing it for profit.
Hello Sillybeliefs team...
I hope supporters of Ken Ring can learn some basics before they try and argue...
I think the statement by Brent today:
Can the science community please tell me when the next large earthquake is going to happen? I am sure with all of your knowledge, wisdom, scientific instruments and empirical studies that you should, in the 21st century, be able to perform this task. Please respond, our lives may depend upon your knowledge.
So if we read your sarcastic comment correctly Geoff, you're saying that if scientists can't reliably predict earthquakes, and they admit they can't, then it's only natural that an astrologer should be employed? Should we also ask a witch when the next asteroid might strike, and a priest when the next serious flu epidemic will hit? Should we get African witchdoctors in to work our cancer wards?
Modern science can't yet cure AIDS, fly man to Mars or predict earthquakes, but just because science has limitations, that's no excuse to throw up our arms and revert back to primitive superstitions. And that's just what Ring employs to make his predictions, ancient astrology, not some sort of science as many supporters call it. Sure he uses a computer, but he runs astrology programs on it, not astronomy and seismology programs.
You obviously don't believe that science with all its 'knowledge, wisdom, scientific instruments and empirical studies' has a hope of predicting earthquakes, so why do you firmly believe that an unqualified ex-school teacher and part time clown using nothing but debunked astrology can? We don't understand people who say, if science can't explain it or fix it, then let's bring in the soothsayers, let's lay on some leeches and let's look at some chicken entrails to see what wisdom they reveal. Can't you see that people like Ring are just exploiting a gap in scientific knowledge, fulfilling a public desire to know the future, and feeding nonsense to the gullible, for a price? Do you seriously believe that scientists wouldn't be utilising Ring's method if it worked?
Regarding the fallout following Monday night's 'Campbell Live' segment on Ken Ring, Gabby has sent us the following link to an article by Peter Griffin:
Running rings around the Moon Man?
We agree with Peter's conclusion: 'The overall impression for those who had only vaguely heard of Ken Ring then was that of a poor old man sitting alone in a TV studio being shouted at by a flustered and clearly angry John Campbell. Tragically, people are flocking to Ring's defence as a result'. Unfortunately much of the public debate that this interview has created has been around how the interview was conducted, not on whether Ring is talking nonsense. People that know nothing of Ring's claims are supporting the man himself, and this could lead them to be more sympathetic to his silly claims. We said earlier that these types of shows could end up promoting him more than debunking him, and it appears that this is the case. Like debating politicians talking over each other, this may make for great TV, but nothing is solved, the truth is not reached. I remember often watching the wizard debating with people in the Christchurch Square years ago, and noticed that even when his opponents in the crowd had a better argument, he always appeared to win because he spoke the loudest, the fastest and the longest. Again, you can't settle a debate like Ring's claims in a few minutes when each side just denies what the other is saying. Because we've researched Ring's claims, we know categorically that Ken Ring told several lies in the 'Campbell Live' interview, which is amazing since he said very little, but the viewer would not know they were lies. The media feel they have to give balance, equal time to both sides of a debate as if they both have an equal chance of being right. For example, for such a short piece, 'Campbell Live' wasted far too much time on letting the public tell us what they thought of Ring's 'science' and what they were going to do. It's not about whether the public believes him, but whether what Ring claims is true. Concentrate on examining Ring's claims and leave the public's opinions out of it. By all means interview Ring himself, but remember that Ring will only divulge what he wants the public to know. Interviews are not the best way to expose Ken Ring, unless the interviewer is very well prepared and the interview lengthy. A better way would be an hour long documentary with explanatory graphics and the ability to state Ring's claims one by one and immediately show why they are false. You need the freedom to be able to edit the program, to connect relevant pieces including responses to claims made by Ring. Interviews fail because people say I wish I knew that beforehand or I didn't have the document on hand or I wish I had had time to give a clearer reply. Documentaries give you the time to get it right. But no one will waste time making a doco on Ken Ring, except perhaps '60 Minutes', they might make a half-hearted attempt that based on their past efforts would probably end up giving him the gold seal of approval.
We believe it will be left up to intelligent, rational skeptics to debunk Ken Ring. So spread the word.
Also well worth a read is this article by David Winter: Ken Ring can't predict earthquakes either
why don't sillybeliefs use their names so people will know who they are with thier equall y silly beliefs
Oh what a powerful argument. We can literally see our criticisms of Ring's claims crumbling as we write this. If only people knew our names were Smith and Jones then they would clearly see that our arguments are bogus and without foundation. You use the flawed reasoning called ad hominem, where you attack the person rather than their argument. Please explain if you can why our arguments against Ring's method are flawed and try to avoid fixating on what we look like.
Also, when you talk about our 'equally silly beliefs', is this you admitting that Ring's beliefs are indeed silly?
they said Einstein Joseph Banks and Hawkins, were mad with their predictions, but it turned out they were right, probably also with Ken Ring
Who said Einstein was mad because of his theories? Some layman who didn't understand relativity? And what predictions are Joseph Banks or Hawkins famous for? Who is Hawkins? Do you mean physicist Stephen Hawking? If you're referring to his latest book where he predicted that there is no god, then yes, he was right. As for Einstein and scientific theories, all theories should make predictions to be considered useful. For example, the theory of gravity predicts that when you drop an object it will fall at a predictable rate. It's how the theory can be tested for correctness.
But the fact is that most people that made predictions throughout history — either scientific, astrological, magical, religious etc — were wrong, and only a handful were correct, hence the reason you can list some of their names. But importantly all those that did make predictions that turned out to be correct only reached their famous status because they PROVED that their predictions were correct. Ring refuses to prove his method, and in fact insists that it can't be done. We should put our faith, our lives and our money on people who are willing and able to prove their claims, not those that hide from the glare of science. You say that Ring is probably right, but the man on the street once said that the world was definitely — not probably — flat and the centre of the universe, that Adam and Eve were real and mental illness was caused by demons. They were all wrong. We should not believe Ring simply because you think he is probably right. Again, be a little more specific and explain to us why our criticisms of his method are wrong. We're not handing over money or fleeing our city on the basis of 'probably'.
The content in the attached links put Rings claims into perspective. No more needs to be said.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2011/03/01/i-predicted-the-earthquake-scientists-respond/
Well you could be right, that ChCh lies in ruins and Ken Rings forecasts were uninformed hocus pocus. From reading the skeptics web sites defense is the better form of attack. Yeah sure he may be completely wrong and out of it but it do you really think that that the planets and stars around earth are not influenced by other planets and stars ? May be your galaxy is so small that God filled your void? Silly beliefs is really good at deconstruction of arguments but small on alternatives .Your skeptics are single minded and ability to reason is based on subjective semantics. What's wrong or not scientific that the stars moon and sun influence us here on earth? Oh john have no idea where you live but please feel free to peddle your line.
Yes Lindsay, we believe we are right, 'Rings forecasts were uninformed hocus pocus'. And let's be clear, Christchurch would still be in ruins whether or not Ring had made his forecasts. Ring only appeared on national TV a week AFTER the earthquake, not before. He made no real effort to warn Christchurch folk to flee their city on the 22nd. He even admitted on 'Campbell Live' that he missed the earthquake by one day (the 18th +/- 3 days), so even if Christchurch had heeded his vague warning and stayed home under the table on those days, they would still have been back at work on the 22nd.
You ask, 'do you really think that that the planets and stars around earth are not influenced by other planets and stars?' What you have just described is pure astrology, which is pure nonsense, and no, there is negligible influence on earth from other planets and stars. As for, 'May be your galaxy is so small that God filled your void?', what galaxy do you live in? Let's keep on topic, is it planets and stars that cause earthquakes or your god? One bogus belief is enough for the moment.
You then asked 'What's wrong or not scientific that the stars moon and sun influence us here on earth?' Why have you missed out planets this time? The simple answer is that most are too far away. Only astrologers believe that the positions of the planets and stars have a real impact on earth and its inhabitants. If you believe they do, please explain what force is acting, how and with what strength. The moon and sun do of course have a very real influence, noticeably in this context with gravity and the tides. This is Ring's argument with weather forecasting as well, if the moon is in the sky, then it is causing the weather. Yes the moon's tidal forces will be affecting the atmosphere and the earth's crust, the question is whether this influence is powerful enough to cause earthquakes (and the weather), and is so dominant that it can be clearly predicted when and where earthquakes will occur. Just because something might be possible, doesn't mean that it actually happens. Just because it is possible that orange sheep exist in the wild, doesn't mean they really exist. There is no evidence that they do, and this is Ring's problem too. Although it is plausible that the moon's gravity has an impact on earthquakes, there is no good scientific evidence that it has such an impact that it can be used to predict when and where they will occur. And Ring has failed to produce any data of his own that would support his claims. We repeat, he did not in any real sense predict either the Sep or Feb earthquakes in Christchurch. He merely threw out numerous vague predictions applicable over a large area and a wide time frame and waited until the inevitable happened. He then highlighted his flukes and buried his failures. Make enough guesses and one or two are bound to be right.
And why didn't he predict the magnitude 4.5 in Wellington this week? Doesn't the moon make an appearance in Wellington skies? Are they in another galaxy too, or is it simply that Ring is focusing on Christchurch because with 5,000 plus earthquakes he can't help but guess a couple?
You say that 'Silly beliefs is really good at deconstruction of arguments but small on alternatives', which we take to mean that we are good at showing where Ring's arguments are flawed, but hopeless at providing earthquake predictions ourselves. Again we ask you, what makes you think we are earthquake forecasters?
You claim that 'Your skeptics are single minded and ability to reason is based on subjective semantics'. If by single minded you mean we refuse to use methods other than reason, say emotion or wishful thinking, to discover how the world works, then yes, we are single minded. But we don't understand what you mean in that our 'ability to reason is based on subjective semantics'. Please explain with examples. Also we don't understand this observation: 'From reading the skeptics web sites defense is the better form of attack'. Ring certainly believes we are attacking him rather than concentrating on our own defence.
We have criticised Ring's method because is uses bogus astrology, because he has a flawed understanding of the science involved, because he will provide no evidence that his method has validity, and because he is continually presenting the public with bogus arguments and false claims in an attempt to promote his business. If Ring had discovered a method to reliably predict earthquakes and/or the weather we would support him with open arms, but we will not support someone who is merely pushing nonsense at a gullible public desperate to foresee the future.
I note that the Oxford dictionary describes 'silly' as "weak-minded"... Your use of Silly is so apt.
Thanks Jeff, but unfortunately a lot of people just want to believe, and not be burdened with all the reading and thinking that goes along with separating fact from fantasy.
just, thank you. i had to spend valuable time arguing the merits of Ken’s crackpot theories, (in the wake of the earthquakes here in NZ) with a couple of my good friends (who are, unfortunately, all too willing to be duped by people like this and unwilling to accept the science in situations like this).
i expect to have more “conversations”. good to know you guys have my back.
We're glad we could help Natasha. It's depressing to think that we still need to have "conversations" to convince people that we have moved on from astrology.
Hello i have been reading your site along with Ken Rings, Geonets and the Cambell live interview and have found this both interesting and entertaining. I live in Christchurch and was dirrectly effected by last weeks Quake including injuries to myself and sadly the loss of a work colleage. Due to my injuries i am unable to work so for the last 2 days have found myself trying to work out how this contraption works with limited success and alot of circles being completed. If possible can you please answer a question for me as it appears to me that you guys have alot more resources at your dispossle than i which is. Is there any scientific evidence that proves 100% that the Moon, Sun and Planets can in no way effect the Earths crust and if so where can i find this evedence. I am not a believer or disbeliever in Kens theories and what ever the answer is will not change the way i live my life unless it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt !00% to be the case until that time i like to keep an open mind to all possibilities. His preddictions dont scare me as i dont see the point in being affraid of something we have no control over fear is a negative and counter productive emotion and a waste of time. Tommorow is the Today we worried about Yesterday.
Hi Pikey, first we probably have no more resources at our disposal than you do, only Ken Ring himself believes we are backed by a huge corporation bent on his destruction.
You ask: 'Is there any scientific evidence that proves 100% that the Moon, Sun and Planets can in no way effect the Earths crust?'
Science can never prove anything 100%, they can only speak of increasing confidence. Scientists can provide evidence that it is extremely likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, but they can never prove it. Furthermore, it is not the job of science to prove that the moon isn't causing earthquakes, it is Ring's job to show that it is. Ring is making a claim that contradicts modern knowledge, it is his responsibility to prove his case. This he has failed, and even refused, to do.
That said, scientific evidence shows that the moon and the sun (and maybe even some planets) definitely DO have an affect on the earth's crust. The major planets such as Jupiter and Saturn are quite distant and their ability to create tidal forces on earth would be negligible, even though technically their gravity, like their reflected light, does reach us. But both the moon and the sun, the moon because it is close and the sun because it is huge, cause the tides in the world's oceans, and they also cause tides in the earth itself, but they are difficult to notice. Ring is absolutely correct on this point. The question is not do they have an affect — they do — but whether this affect is massive enough to cause major earthquakes. And more importantly, whether we can predict when the moon and sun would cause these earthquakes.
Ring's belief is that since the moon does have an affect on the earth's crust, then this affect is so powerful that it causes the crust to rupture resulting in earthquakes. Ring believes, contrary to science, that 'Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa'. By this he seems to mean that there are no existing faults in the crust that might break, the ground is pristine until the moon passes over head and rips it apart. And he believes he can predict where and when this will happen.
There is some evidence that the tidal forces of the sun and moon do contribute to earthquakes, and there is nothing implausible or surprising about this. The study described in this article 'Are Earthquakes Encouraged by High Tides?' found that 'very high tides, rather than a normal tide cycle, seemed to coincide with seismic activity'. This was the concluding paragraph: 'all we're really saying is that if earthquakes are going to occur anyway, [high tides] may be adding a little extra force. So we might [someday] be able to say that a quake could be more likely during a morning tidal period, for example, but not be able to know which specific morning'. They don't see the moon as causing earthquakes, but maybe giving them an extra nudge in rare cases, and note that they say this knowledge doesn't assist in predicting exactly when they will happen. This article 'Sun and Moon Trigger Deep Tremors on San Andreas Fault' makes the following comments:
"But it seems like it must be very subtle, because we actually don't see a tidal signal in regular earthquakes. Even though the earthquake zone also sees the tidal stress and also feels the added periodic behavior of the tremor below, they don't seem to be very bothered."
'In fact, the shear stress from the sun, moon and ocean tides amount to around 100 Pascals, or one-thousandth atmospheric pressure, whereas the pressure 25 kilometers underground is on the order of 600 megaPascals, or 6 million times greater.'
We must also remember that the tidal forces that Ring claims are causing our earthquakes happen twice a day. We have two high tides every day which bring increased risk of earthquakes according to Ring. As for the main factors, Ring says earthquakes will cluster around the full moon and perigee, the point when the moon is closest to the earth in its orbit. Full moon and perigee occur every month. Ring also says there is increased risk of earthquakes at new moon (every month), low tide (twice a day), mid-tide (several times a day), apogee (once a month), during solar activity (daylight hours), when the moon is on the horizon (all the time), at midday and midnight, etc etc. The point is, if the moon is causing major earthquakes due to the factors that Ring pushes, then it is causing them all the time, day in, day out, month in, month out. No time is safe. The sun and moon's tidal forces don't switch on and off, they are there all the time, although they do increase and decrease based on the position of the earth to the sun and moon. Ring believes that by plotting these changes in position, eg full moon, perigee etc, that it will be shown that major earthquakes occur around these times of maximum pull. Unfortunately for Ring there is no scientific evidence to support his view. Earthquakes do not cluster around the times that he believes the moon is having it disastrous influence. His theory has been falsified. We are in the process of plotting the 20 largest earthquakes that have occurred in NZ, and only one happened on a full moon and perigee. Only one out of 20! No others even fell within a week of a full moon, when they all should have according to Ring. In fact our research (which we hope to put online shortly) shows that nearly all these earthquakes happened when there was no full or new moon, just the opposite to what Ring claims should have happened. But there is no obvious pattern between earthquakes and full moons and perigee, they appear to occur with no regard to what the moon is doing. Of course Ring can continue to say that the moon's position does influence earthquakes, just as some people say that having sex with virgins cures AIDS, but neither has done anything to prove their claims. Ring needs to convincingly demonstrate — to scientists, not the man on the street — why he can see patterns in earthquakes that no one else can.
As the 'Campbell Live' interview stated, not one single scientist they could find supports Ring's views. Why is the public saying that the views of an astrologer are somehow equal to that of the world's scientific community? Ring believes that Maori were brought to NZ as slaves, that human civilisation existed 120 million years ago (ie with the dinosaurs) and that we can discover our cat's character and destiny by reading its paw. People shouldn't be demanding that science waste time proving Ring wrong, they should be demanding that Ring front up with evidence of his claims. Note that he refused a longer interview and another chance to explain his method on 'Campbell Live'. This is not the sign of someone desperate to get his story across, more like someone with something to hide. If you ignore the way the interview was conducted, Ring actually came off very badly, lying several times, and all this would come out in a more detailed interview. It is no wonder that Ring has refused a rematch.
But you're quite right Pikey in that it is non-productive to worry over things that we have no control over. Even if Ring was on to something regarding the moon, if all he can say is that earthquakes are more likely around midday and midnight and the hours in between, and most days every month, then they are completely worthless. We can't spend the rest of our lives cowering under the table, fearing things that thankfully don't happen every month, or even every decade.
Pssssssst... hey John, don't like to be too pedantic about things but I was reading out to my partner why Ken Ring shouldn't be bothered with and came across the date errors in your article: comments #149 and #151 by 'the Team' both attribute the Christchurch Sept Quake to 2009. Should of course be 2010!
Other than that, I continue to love the site and advertise for you (word of mouth only of course... I'm not made of money!) on a nearly daily basis!
Cheers, and keep up the good work.
Excellent, thanks for pointing that out Ross. We like to keep things accurate, and I've corrected the dates to 2010. I lie awake at night worrying what errors might have slipped in (no, not really). There's probably a mountain load of grammatical errors, but hopefully not too many factual ones. Or at least none that Ken Ring and his supporters have pointed out. Thanks for your support.
The following are links to some interesting articles relating to Ring's latest earthquakes predictions:
Learning from America's Ken Ring moment
Predicting earthquakes: Ring hedges his bets
Scientists back Campbell in Moon Man quake prediction row
Civil Defence refuses comment on Moon Man's March 20 quake prediction
And on the Weatherwatch.co.nz site they're running a poll that asks this question:
The results of that poll are truly horrifying, although respondent self-selection bias should probably be kept in mind. As you folks well know, Ken Ring's belief systems don't stand up to any scrutiny whatever. This is a guy who thinks ice thaws at 4C and that CFCs can't cause ozone depletion as they are too heavy to travel to the stratosphere... his grasp of science is not even primary school level.
I've just spent about 6 hours reading your site and the comments. It's 2 am. My eyes are sore and I'm tired. But it's been well worth it. Thanks for a very entertaining read, especially the exchanges between yourself and the guru himself. I'm still amazed at how many believers there are out there in forum land. It's like if anyone questions anything, all these people in denial jump out of cyberspace.
Anyway, just wanted to make sure you've listened to Ken's interview he did with Marcus Lush after the September quake which you can listen to by googling Marcus Lush Ken Ring. He quite clearly says here there will be an earthquake on a specific faultline on a specific date and even gives an approximate time. There didn't seem any doubt. He also says that earthquakes can be predicted and he's the man to do it.
Now I see, as the date approaches, he has changed his tune completely. It's now only an 'opinion', and he doesn't know whether it will happen, and it will only be a small one.
It makes me so sad that so many have been terrorised by this man. And it's also sad the number of media people who have fallen for this man (in particular a seemingly intelligent broadcaster on ZB mornings based in Auckland), which have given him some credibility.
Yes Peter, Ring is a real Jekyll and Hyde character, making contradictory claims and predictions. No matter what happens he will be able to point people to one of his many media claims that exactly matches reality, while hoping the same people will be ignorant of the opposite ones. And he's right, and you too, believers come out of nowhere to support him, ignorant of both science and of what Ring does.
Prior to the Feb quake Ring quite clearly noted on his website that regarding what might happen: 'These are opinions and not predictions', but once a devastating quake did strike, on his website he told the world that 'The latest earthquake has tragically happened as predicted'. As predicted. Once he had seen it happen he changed it from an opinion to a prediction. He knew all along. Those that reinvent the past are not to be trusted.
It works
Sorry Matt, but what works? Ken's weather predictions, his earthquake predictions, his whale stranding predictions, his ability to scare the vulnerable, his ability to turn a long debunked superstition into a money making business, his ability to read the paws of cats? What exactly works?
Of all the things I have read in this blog, I think the thing that struck me the most was Ken Ring's comment #130 that he was not prepared to put in the time and effort to come up with more precise earthquake predictions as he doesn't get paid for it. You would think, that if he was so sure he was right, at this terrible moment in Canterbury's history, that this is exactly what he should be doing. If right, he could save hundreds of lives and then I am sure, he would get his precious money to further his hours of computer study etc, that he needs to put in. He would be a hero nationwide and the world would be falling over themselves to get his knowledge. So either he is just too modest to want the attention, or he simply doesn't care enough about human life to put the effort in, or maybe he is just not confident in his predictions.
I think we all know which of those three options is most likely preventing Ring from putting in the time and effort to accurately predict earthquakes and save lives, and it's not modesty. If no money is changing hands then Ring won't even try.
I believe the poll on the WeatherWatch site has been impacted by multiple votes — the poll uses a cookie to track users who have voted
rather than IP addresses. This can be tested using a browser in 'private' mode eg Chrome or Firefox where multiple votes are allowed.
A more conventional poll on a forum which is by registered users and only allows one vote showed only 8% support for Ken Ring — see
http://www.vorb.org.nz/ken-ring-total-arsehole-knowledgeable-fellow-t111146.html
I refer to your post 205, final paragraph re the on line poll. I fear the poll will not be in favour of science — we will miss out by a a couple of % points but if we do here is why.
Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them. ...
Hence in a general sense some pseudo scientists, soothsayers, tea leaf readers, spoon benders, crystal ball readers, ghost hunters, paranormal consultants, witch doctors, psychics, para-psychologists, palmistry practitioners, tarot card readers, numerologists, astrologers, witch doctors, flamboyant deceivers, charlatans, tricksters, and those that indulge in quackery and other forms of hocus pocus and prophecies maybe don't want scientific validation of their practices, theories or accuracy of their predictions tested, because gullible people already validate it for them in their own minds and 'spread the word'. Many will confirm subjective validation in a number of ways, for example by writing charitable and grateful e mails to predictors, voting on internet polls because they like the person, or posting uninformed criticism of science and scientists on innumerable blogs advising where science has got things wrong in order to justify why the types named above have got it right. Some will provide hollow reasoning to justify support of such nonsense. Others are true believers. People are perfectly entitled to believe what they want to believe, and good on them, that's their right — however some of the clever practitioners no doubt rely on subj
|