Add a Comment    Send to a Friend

Ken Ring is a long range weather forecaster covering NZ, Australia, the UK etc. Living in Auckland, NZ, he publishes 'Ken Ring's Predict Weather Almanac and Isobaric Maps' and is the author of other books such as 'The Lunar Code: How the Moon affects the Weather on Earth', 'Ken Ring's Predicting the Weather by the Moon' and 'Moon and Weatherlore'. All these are promoted on his website and are based around his theory that the Earth's weather is caused by the Moon's gravitational effect on the Earth's atmosphere, and therefore our weather can be predicted by observing the position and movement of the Moon.

Scientists and meteorologists give no credence to his claims. In this essay I will look to see whether even a layperson can find fault with his theory. Do the things that you and I can check make sense? I will look at whether his claims can be trusted, whether there is any substance to his theory and whether his business is anything more than a fraudulent money making venture.

My conclusion: It's all a scam.

Background

The Short Version

5 Reasons why it's all a Scam

1) Mr Ring's Predictions Fail in the Real World
2) Mr Ring Reinterprets his Failed Forecasts
3) Mr Ring Falsely Promotes his Ability
4) Mr Ring's Theory is Pseudoscience
5) Mr Ring's Research is Pathetic

The Expanded Version

Mr Ring's False Claims
Mr Ring's Moon Theory
Is it Astronomy or Astrology?
It's a Pseudoscience because...

Detailed Accounts of Mr Ring Reinterpreting his Failed Forecasts

The BoP Flood was Forecast: I don't think so!
The Infamous Cold Snap
And now to more Recent Forecasting Problems
Still more Wet and Dry Weather
NZ's Moonman predicts Asian Tsunami. Exactly.

Don't You Judge Me!

Mr Ring welcomes support, not debate
No Follow-Up on Predictions
Some of Mr Ring's other Strange Beliefs

Conclusion

Reader's Comments

Comments from Ken Ring

References

In Nov 2005 I wrote a letter to the Southland Express (a weekly newspaper delivered free to households in Invercargill and parts of Southland) criticising a recent article by Jeff Elton. This article enthusiastically promoted Ken Ring's Weather Almanac on forecasting using the moon. (Go here to read the article, published in the Southland Express, Thursday October 13 2005.)
They chose not to publish my letter, which was their right. However they did choose to forward my letter on to Sarah Thornton of Random House (his publisher), who forwarded it to Ken Ring, who in turn replied to both Angelina of the Southland Express and Random House, but not to me. However the Southland Express did send me a copy of his email reply to them.

From a newspaper perspective, I believe that reviews of books such as Mr Ring's need to be balanced and unbiased. If they can not be written as such, they need to be clearly identified as an advertisement. From a publisher's perspective, I'm not suggesting censorship of books of a controversial nature, but there is a crucial difference between publishing someone's views and then going on to support and promote those views as factual.

As much as I disagreed with Mr Ring's email comments, initially I wasn't going to waste my time replying. If they wouldn't print a short letter then they certainly wouldn't print a more lengthy critique of Mr Ring's reply. However on Nov 29th 2005 Gisborne was once again struck by devastating floods, just 5 or 6 weeks after its previous flood. Mr Ring's Almanac predicted neither. Then I came across Mr Ring claiming on the internet to have predicted the devastating 2004 Asian tsunami. A little research showed his claim to be utterly false, so I have been motivated to have another attempt at demonstrating that he is a fraud.

The following was my letter to the Southland Express:

Reading Jeff Elton's article on Ken Ring's 'impressive' and 'popular' weather almanac (Oct 13 2005), I agree that he's having the last laugh with sales of his book ~ laughing all the way to the bank. Buying Ring's book to predict the weather is as useful as buying a book on horoscopes to predict your future.

Glancing at a copy recently, I checked around May 18 2005 when extreme rainfall caused destructive floods in parts of Tauranga and Matata. Ring's prediction: fine weather everywhere. And this is just one of numerous examples of the failure of his system, yet Ring, in both his interviews and in his books, highlights his lucky guesses and suppresses his many failures. According to Ring many people swear by its accuracy, but since many people also swear by horoscopes and psychics, this merely demonstrates that some people can be easily fooled.

Ring's theory is nothing more than pseudoscience, i.e. claims that sound scientific to the layperson, but which are utterly bogus. Meteorology doesn't use these 'ancient methods' for one simple reason. They don't work.

Dear Sarah and Angelina

My credibility has been challenged by your correspondent and I am surely allowed right of reply. Mention was made that I missed the 18 May heavy rain event in the BoP. I don’t think so. It was dry in the BoP on May 15 and started raining on the 16. The flooding occurred on the 18. A glance at my almanac reveals I predicted dry weather there for 14 and rain all over the North Island including BoP on 15 and 16 (p129 and p141). So I was one day out with my timing. I always ask for this grace, just as the Metservice do, and everyone accepts forecasting is not an exact science. Bearing in mind I wrote the book 18 months beforehand, one day is within my expectancy. As for amounts, the moon method is more about the timing of rain, as explained in the first chapter of the book. So I am pleased to have listed the mid-month rains correctly.
It is unfortunate that your correspondent chose the 16-18 May event because the Metservice missed the event until when it was actually happening. Severe Weather Warning. Ref: OMS17-45720 was issued on May 18 and for the first time mentions the Bay of Plenty.
The attachments will show
(actual) dry weather on the 15
(actual) rain arriving in the BoP on the 16
the embarrassing absence of rain icons on the Metservice website at Tauranga on the 17 and 18. Their first report, OMS17-45720 came through on the 18 at 9.15am. I can supply this if requested, including all previous SWWs leading up to 18, as I subscribe to their services.
I welcome further debate on this matter, because the opportunity for meteorology to investigate a tool that works is lost under such claims as these that the moon method, just because it is not taught in a university, must therefore be nothing more than pseudoscience. Written a year ago, the 2005 almanac team correctly predicted a coolish last summer, a mild autumn, a warm winter just gone and a dismal ski season. What is the problem?
regards
Ken Ring

What is the problem indeed? Where to begin? My letter highlighted three problems I have with Mr Ring's claims.

1. Mr Ring fails to predict extreme weather, and I gave as an example the May BoP floods.
2. Mr Ring misrepresents the accuracy of his alamanc by selective re-reading of his forecasts.
3. Mr Ring's weather prediction method is nothing more than pseudoscience.

I also likened his scam to horoscopes twice, although at the time I didn't realise how dependant on astrology Mr Ring's method actually is. In this essay I will clearly show this link.

Mr Ring's email to the Southland Express and Random House didn't address any of these problems, the bulk of his reply attempting to defend his May predictions. Judging by the tone of his reply I also suspect that he was unaware that my letter wasn't actually published.

In this essay I will simply show that his predictions, in hindsight, don't match the real world. I will also show that Mr Ring's attempts to reinterpret his forecasts are disingenuous and that his defensive description of what his method can deliver doesn't match his promotion of it to the public. I will also show that it is a pseudoscience and give examples where Mr Ring makes claims about science, history etc that are demonstrably false. Some appear to be made in order to promote his theory, others in ignorance.

While this essay is rather lengthy, the time required to read it is but a drop in the ocean compared to the time that one would spend reading his Almanac everyday for years and years. If you are prepared to allocate this time to his Almanac, you should at least be prepared to see whether you should even bother reading it. Plus this advice is free, unlike Mr Ring's.

Luckily you don't have to read the entire essay to understand my argument, since I'm now going to summarise the 5 main points. If you find my claims unconvincing or confusing, I have provided more detail further into the essay to substantiate them all.

In this essay I will use quotes from Ken Ring's Almanac, website, books, Internet forums and email replies to me. The text in violet are Mr Ring's actual quotes. My comments are in normal black text.

1) Mr Ring's Predictions Fail in the Real World:

• Mr Ring's Almanac failed to predict the May 2005 BoP floods.
• Mr Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Oct 2005 Gisborne floods.
• Mr Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Nov 2005 Gisborne floods.
• Mr Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Jan 2005 southwest North Island floods.
• Mr Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Sep 2005 Canterbury snow.
• Mr Ring failed to predict the Dec 2004 Asian Tsunami. (Yes, he predicts earthquakes as well as weather)

These events were simply taken at random and checked against Mr Ring's Almanac.

Every prediction failed.

After devastating floods on May 18th, Mr Ring stated in defence of his forecasts:

Mention was made that I missed the 18 May heavy rain event… I don't think so.

"Little or no recordable rain anywhere"
"Fine and dry everywhere"
"Little or no rain in both islands"

Mr Ring states he was one day out on a forecast when in fact he was three days out.

After the Canterbury September snowfall event, Mr Ring ignores his Almanac's 'Daily Forecasts' which failed to predict snow, and publicly quotes part of his 'Summary' which does (strangely enough) mention snow in both islands.

After the 2004 Asian tsunami occurs, Mr Ring reinterprets his vague published statement of

"Interestingly some of the largest earthquakes in recorded history have been [at this time ~ Nov]"

Here's a classic example of how Mr Ring creates successful forecasts after the fact:

The reality is that weather is an inexact science… So if a forecast says rain for Auckland but it only rains in Huntly, 60 miles away, then given the tools available it is as close as one can reasonably get, and therefore can be considered a successful forecast.

All the public hears are his claims of successful predictions and they are blindly unaware of the devious manipulations he has performed to turn actual failures into apparent successes.

3) Mr Ring Falsely Promotes his Ability:

Mr Ring claims that his prediction method is not about predicting how much rain will fall, but only whether it will rain. It is not about amounts. He says this in his email, his Almanac and on his website:

"The moon method is best suited for predicting the timing of rain rather than amounts".

"As for amounts, the moon method is more about the timing of rain".

Yet he contradicts himself when he assures the public that he can:

"confidently predict droughts and floods FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS".

His public claim is that he can reliably predict weather for very specific events: weddings, cutting hay, concerts etc. He then hides disclaimers in his work that deny this ability, that all his forecasts are "plus or minus one day" and he even extends this by talking about a "3-4 day window". He markets his Almanac on "specific event" accuracy, then denies it in the fine print.

Here's another snippet that he doesn't widely publicise:

Most data is taken at airports, and that data most of the time is all that is available for me and my associates to use… Thus unless your location is at or near the airport the forecast may be at least slightly and possibly way out.

4) Mr Ring's Theory is Pseudoscience:

Mr Ring clearly sees the conflict between his prediction method and that of mainstream science as a debate between astrology and astronomy. Mr Ring states on his website (www.predictweather.com):

• It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to.
• We are rediscovering answers about... the role that pre-Christian era astrology can still play.
• there's nothing wrong with basic good old working astrology... it is about time the truth got told.

Astrology is pseudoscience. Mr Ring's theory is based on astrology. Thus his theory must also be a pseudoscience. Apart from linking himself to a known pseudoscience, are there other signs that he is promoting pseudoscience?

So what is a pseudoscience and how do you expose one? Physicist Milton Rothman describes pseudoscience as "a false science that pretends to be real". The following is a list of things to check for. The more questions you answer YES to, the more likely the topic being examined is a pseudoscience. In regard to Mr Ring's claims, one can honestly answer YES to every one of these signs:

1. Does the discoverer pitch his claim directly to the media? — YES
2. Does the discoverer say that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work? — YES
3. Is the scientific effect involved always at the very limit of detection? — YES
4. Do they only offer anecdotal evidence? — YES
5. Does the discoverer say a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries? — YES
6. Is the best evidence for the theory decades old? — YES
7. Does the discoverer work in isolation? — YES
8. Does the discoverer require us to abandon well established laws of science & proposes new laws of nature to explain an observation? — YES
9. Does the discoverer use terms and phrases that make their claims sound scientific, but which are in fact bogus? — YES
10. Is the subject only taught in unaccredited institutions or not taught at all? — YES
11. Does the discoverer make supportive claims that are fabricated? — YES
12. Does it employ the shyness effect: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't? — YES
13. Do they appeal to ignorance: "There is more out there than you know"? — YES
14. Do they attack the critic rather than the criticism? — YES
15. Do they say things that are largely true but are unrelated to their claims? — YES

Later in this essay I provide examples for every one of these points. Since my argument also hinges on the claim that astrology is a pseudoscience and superstition that has been convincingly debunked, I will also provide information to this end.

The above points were taken from "The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science", by Robert L. Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland, and an article by Lee Moller (1994) in the Rational Enquirer.

These are claims that are just plain wrong, as any school child could discover:

Dolphins beam sonar signals to the Moon

The Moon is a 'planet'

Gravity is far from being the weakest force

The solar wind is an electromagnetic energy force-field

Sir George Darwin was the father of Charles Darwin

Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides

The world's population is 8 billion, and only 5% of them are Christians

Our word 'measurement' came from 'moon', and 'meteorology' comes from 'meteor-astrology'

These claims are not only wrong, they completely destroy Mr Ring's credibility. They demonstrate that his ability to research even straightforward facts, unrelated to his theory, is pathetic. If Mr Ring can't be trusted to get the simple stuff correct, why should we believe he gets the complex maths and physics correct?

On a more devious note, it would be despicable if Mr Ring is aware that these claims are bogus and still uses them to give the appearance that there is wide support for his theory. Let's hope he's just an incompetent researcher.

Mr Ring's False Claims:

The following examples are claims made by Ken Ring that are just plain wrong. Logic, reason, critical thinking and good research are poorly utilised by Mr Ring in these examples.

Each silly mistake he makes eats away at his credibility. Ask yourself if you would continue to trust your doctor, accountant, lawyer, builder, electrician, mechanic etc if they continued to show such gross ignorance in their claimed field of expertise? We all make mistakes, but Mr Ring seems to build a career around his, supported by people that are too gullible for their own good.

Too many people let Mr Ring confuse them with scientific gobbledegook and pseudoscience, but you don't need a degree in astrophysics to expose his scam. If you simply examine the basics of his claims you find the foundation for his whole theory collapses. Many of his claims are simply meaningless. Let's begin with this one:

[Mr Ring] says "when there is no moon in the sky, the air goes out, the cold of space comes down and condenses".

Vacuum pockets of air may develop as a local atmosphere rushes towards a rising or setting moon.

With the next statement he demonstrates a level of knowledge that would embarrass most children:

Pick up any popular book about weather… and look for 'moon' in the index. It is a rare book that even will be found to list the planet, let alone give it any role.

And what about this beauty:

there are times when Earth's gravitational force is nullified, and these are special positions of the Sun and Moon and planets, from which forces from above can effect changes on Earth.

When describing the universe Mr Ring mentions:

… vast cosmic forces that began light years before …

Claiming to have studied the night sky for years, he talks of:

… our next-door star-neighbour, Alpha Centauri in Andromeda.

In the next quote Mr Ring talks of a planet moving across the sky from one constellation to the next:

When a switchover of zodiac signs occurs there is agitation in the atmosphere and a weather change … this happens approximately every 30 days based on the Ascendant changing signs every thirty degrees of arc around the wheel.

Like most people pushing a scam, Mr Ring loves to exaggerate:

If you believe a…Ozone layer is protecting… the Earth from the sun's intense energy that travels out one light year from source then you'll believe anything.

Here Mr Ring attempts to provide some robust evidence for his claims, but gets it wrong yet again:

We should stop being surprised about any extreme events… We have always had extreme weather, look at any page in the bible.

This quote from Mr Ring suggests he has watched one too many children's cartoons:

Oh, in case you haven't noticed, crabs, insects (like bees), birds, fish and cows obviously know more about astronomy than humans. They know when the moon is about to be full or new even though they often can't see it, and their behaviour, mating, migratory movement and feeding, alters accordingly. Now wouldn't it be good if one day we became smart like that.

And before people email me to complain, of course I understand what Mr Ring is really talking about here. He's claiming that since supposedly dumb animals worldwide have been able to detect the moon's gravity, when will arrogant humans drop their air of superiority and admit that the moon's gravity obviously affects us as well. I assume he's talking about gravity, because if he's not then his whole blurb is worthless, offering no support for his theory whatsoever. However there is no evidence these animals are being influenced by the moon's gravity. He merely lists examples of animals altering their behaviour by being able to detect things like varying light intensity, different wavelengths of light, light polarisation and even magnetic fields. Furthermore, animals aren't being 'smart' when they do these things, they are simply operating on blind instinct. There is a monumental gulf between animals responding to stimuli in their environment and what humans 'know' about that same environment. It is disingenuous to suggest that these various life forms even have a concept of astronomy, let alone know more about it than we do.

Continuing on the theme of intellect, Mr Ring tries to impress us with his mastery of logic:

Question: I know of no met office that uses the term "caused by the moon" when referring to average monthly rainfall. (Erin)
Ken Ring: If you wait for a metservice to mention the moon you'll be waiting a million years. But, tee-hee, they DO whenever they say MONTH… Average monthly rainfall means average rain caused by the Moon. Nothing else… We are following the Moon's cycle here… Please accept the logic of this - a five year old would. So if you find that… the recorded monthly average rainfall stays consistent, I believe logically one MUST ACCEPT it is controlled by the Moon. By definition, surely there is no other possibility.

Next Mr Ring explains why we have trouble understanding his theories. We're using the wrong type of science:

You would not be able to assess my method either unless you viewed it through different eyes. For example if you went to an Eastern university rather than a Western one your outlook would be entirely different… The trouble is that we are used to stats and a validation system that gives us instant answers that belong to western science, not eastern. Natural science doesn't work like that.

Here's Mr Ring making a patently false claim:

To only rely on "evidence" from instrumentation we have been thus far clever enough to invent, is only the tip of our world of gathered data. Instruments are only ever extensions of our 5 senses, so the senses themselves are still the best evidencers.

In the following answer to a reader's question, Mr Ring demonstrates that his scientific ignorance isn't related solely to astronomy, but in fact knows no bounds. I provide his complete answer because it demonstrates how Mr Ring weaves errors, fiction and pure fantasy around real facts to create what appears to be a genuine scientific answer, but is in fact bullshit:

Question: Is the world getting larger due to the cooling of the interior? Would that account for the continental drift and the breaking up of tectonic plates, so causing earthquakes? (Murray Willis, Great Barrier)

Ken Ring: I think so, yes. The sea floor is spreading and at the edges of the continents there are deep trenches where the sea floor is being pushed under those continents. It is also the areas where violent earthquakes are taking place, especially around the edges of the Pacific. Even a gain of, say, half an inch a year of sea floor spread could add up to somewhere near 1287km (800 miles) over a period of 100 million years. This distance would be added to the Earth's circumference at the equator, and of course, at the poles. Going back several hundred million years then, and progressively deducting this amount from Earth's circumference shows us a much reduced Earth. It raises an interesting question. With the same amount of atmosphere that is available on Earth now and which should have been available then on a smaller sphere, the greater depth of the atmosphere would be compressed by its own weight making for a higher barometric pressure. Theoretically, only under those conditions would the large prehistoric pterosaur have been able to fly. Their wings would have had something more substantial to flap on. It would also explain why the less efficient flyers became extinct or flightless and why seals, porpoises and whales switched from land-based animals to become sea residents; spending more time in the water as a way of adapting to changing air and atmospheric pressures.

The following statements demonstrate that Mr Ring is confused about the difference between 'tidal pull' and 'gravitational pull', even though again this is the field he claims to be an expert in, and understanding these concepts is crucial to his theory:

The Sun… has a tidal pull…, but being much further away, has a pull less than half that of the Moon.

The Moon… has two and a half times the gravitational pull of the Sun.

His theory on cloud movement seems to be a combination of the matter transporter on Star Trek's Enterprise and a TV cartoon:

Clouds… do not travel that much. If you watch a cloud it will disintegrate immediately and another will form further along, giving the impression of forward movement.

In the following exchange Mr Ring explains 'wind' to a school child:

Hauturu School Yr 1-4 Kawhia
[Sheneil:] How does wind start to blow?

[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.

We mentioned that basically correct description of wind to highlight a contradiction. Because in reality Mr Ring doesn't really believe the explanation he gave to this child. He doesn't believe that the wind, which is a part of our weather, is caused by the Sun. He proudly states that only:

a dwindling few still claim that the Sun causes the weather.

We are partly to blame for calling weather forecasting a 'science'. Bridge-building and chemistry are sciences but really weather is an opinion-based product based on best-guessing… [and] By definition an opinion, just like a feeling cannot be wrong.

How about some mathematical magic:

75% of the earth is covered by oceans. Of the rest, nearly 3% is covered by ice and of the remaining 24% less than 2% is habitable…

If we only occupy 1.8%, that means 98.6% of Earth is uninhabited.

Mr Ring also writes articles on 'scientific myths' such as Global Warming/Climate Change, the Greenhouse Effect, ozone depletion, methane and cow farting etc. While it is accepted that these topics are complex and controversial even within scientific circles, Mr Ring's conclusions can not be trusted due to his pathetic and incompetent research. He destroys his credibility with gems such as this:

Secondly there is no evidence that they can destroy anything because they [CFCs] are very stable and unreactive substances. Most dictionaries and chemistry books describe them as inert gases.

Here he tries to explain why CO₂ can't cause global warming:

Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2… The coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun. If CO2 alone heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is.

He further damages his credibility with silly analogies:

CO2 is heavier than air… CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work.

Mr Ring continues this theme with the following analogy:

Bricks Don't Float Up… CFCs are so dense…

And while we're on Global Warming, here's Ken Ring's answer as to why it exists:

Why Invent Global Warming?
Answer: to get research funds...

And is this just another example of him making things up:

In the same way, 'hard' water molecules, H3O, doesn't prevent anyone from getting wet.

And how about this old wife's tale:

On a micro-scale there is a monthly tide in the endocrine system of half the human inhabitants of this planet - the menstrual 28 day cycle.

In the following claims Mr Ring seems to believe that when a gas increases in volume, this will cause the pressure to rise also.

The Moon expands the air, raises the pressure

The higher pressure due to the greater volume clears the skies.

Then there is his theory that the Moon is causing aircraft crashes, such as Ansett 703 and even the space shuttle:

Ansett 703… So what may do the damage? Vacuum pockets of air

The Shuttle Columbia came to grief on January 31 2003… We feel that the shuttle may have been sharply hit an incoming "king airtide" within the hour of a rising new moon, which had the potential to produce huge turbulence. This is not to say that the Moon directly caused it, but if the plane was already teetering out of control, the extra turbulence from both Moon and Sun may have sealed it's fate.

Here he dreams up a cause for earthquakes, which he uses to explain the 2004 Asian tsunami:

Earthquakes were noticed to happen at the same time as planets formed a straight line in the sky, and the line-up of all of them, including the moon on December 26 [2004] gave us a good reason for the Asian tsunami.

Next he claims that earthquakes aren't caused by planet alignment after all, but by a "magic" angle between the Sun and the Moon:

Earthquakes are triggered by Moon and Sun acting together at a multiple 45deg angle… when the Sun and Moon are at that angle… this required angle between Sun and Moon. This magic number… being the angle to a particular location at which the Sun and Moon acting together can exert a maximum combined gravitational force through a narrow force corridor from space, and yet be unopposed by Earth’s gravity.
The earthquake in Bam, Iran, on the December 26 at 5:28am local time, also occurred when the Moon was 45deg from the horizon. Get hold of any astrology program and verify this for yourself.

While I was at it, I checked out the following "angle" statement:

Anyway, back to the Tangiwai story. On December 24, 1953 at 9.19pm the Sun and Moon were exactly at the right angle apart for an earthquake in the Ruapehu area. Not only that, the Moon was at 90deg azimuth, 90deg being a multiple of 45 and one of the significant angle numbers.

Mr Ring seems to have plenty of astrology books but no dictionary:

Our word 'measurement' came from 'moon', and 'meteorology' comes from 'meteor-astrology'

In the following outburst Mr Ring quotes figures and performs calcualations which only serve to demonstrate how incompentent his research is:

Posted on 'Net-weather forum' by: Ken Ring, May 2005:
I can assure you that at least 90% of the world's population still revere the moon as the instigator of weather and climate…
The Christians… comprise about 400 million peoples, out of 8,000 million, i.e. only about 5% of the population of the world. That means maybe 95% of the world still adhere somewhat to lunar philosophy. And if 95 or even 90% of the world thought lunar, then you can safely say the world mainly thinks lunar, with a few exceptions. This may be difficult to accept for the arrogant western mind.

You miss my point, Christians… are still by far the minority [religion] in the world.

Does he just make up these figures or does he seriously believe in their validity, the same way he seriously believes in his moon theory?

In a section on the ancient history of weather forecasting, Mr Ring tries to convince the reader that ancient cultures had some impressive, unexpected scientific knowledge of the universe.

In West Africa the Dogon people in Mali mapped with precision the Sirius star system hundreds of years before NASA invented a powerful telescope in the 1970s through which at last they were able to see the same thing. The Dogons had been 100% correct without the use of technology. Further to this, the Dogons insist there is also a Sirius B further away that NASA still cannot locate.

And now for some more rewriting of history:

Sir George Darwin, father of Charles, was the most eminent scientist of his day.

And what about this one, where Mr Ring brings in Galileo as one of his supporters, and also demonstrates how the "establishment" treats those, like himself, with radical ideas:

Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides, or risk further imprisonment by Rome's papal court

If Mr Ring can't be trusted to get the simple stuff correct, why should we believe he gets the complex maths and physics correct, especially when he admits "I realise all this is hard to fathom, and you are not alone".

On his website Mr Ring claims that his theory is being suppressed and his reputation denigrated:

The Moon and acquiring any further knowledge about it is still actively suppressed as being a pagan activity and the mere mention of the Moon still sometimes creates fear and hostility. Also suppressed is any discussion about it, on NZ weather forums or in the newspapers.

I have good-naturedly been called a "lunatic" in TV interviews and on radio, a gentle fobbing off. The labels 'snake oil', New Age, voodoo, hocus pocus, lunatic etc become par for the course

weather forecasters are now seriously beginning to look at the effects of the Moon and are in regular discussion on this with the author.

Ken's forecasts are syndicated in newspapers

Mr Ring actually confirms this with the following:

I do regularly submit articles to the Herald, Metro and the Listener, but I am largely ignored.

Mr Ring's Moon Theory

So far I have just done what any layperson can do. I've simply looked at some of his claims and forecasts and checked whether they matched the real world. They don't. But what about the 'science' behind his theory? I'm not a meteorologist, astronomer, physicist or scientist of any description, but from what I've read and as I stated in my original letter, it appears to be pseudoscience, i.e. claims that sound scientific to the layperson, but which are utterly bogus.

Mr Ring's theory is that the Moon not only influences the Earth's weather, it actually causes it:

a dwindling few still claim that the Sun causes the weather.

Meteorology… has not progressed… because it has been based on wrong modus operandi, namely that the sun generates weather… All are wrong.

By shifting the atmosphere, the Moon is directly responsible for Earth's climate.

The predictions have been generated only by calculating the orbits of the moon.

It is little known that there are at least four separate… tides caused by lunar gravitation… the sea-tide… the inner-core tide… the land-tide… the air-tide

The Earth's gravity is the only thing holding the atmosphere to the planet's surface. Thus it is indisputable that gravity has a pull on the atmosphere. Also there is no fundamental difference between the Earth's gravity and that of the Moon. Gravity is gravity. Thus gravity, no matter from what source — the Earth, Sun, Moon or the most distant galaxies — must have some affect on our atmosphere.

The crucial question is: 'How much affect do these different sources have?' Mr Ring falsely believes that anything that has an affect must have a noticeable affect:

So is it too silly to state that if it has an effect on the atmosphere then it must control the weather by distribution of the clouds?

The word tide isn't just confined to sea, land and air... Why should there not be tides within us… And why should not those internal tides be at least somewhat influenced by sun and moon, if these have been shown to at least somewhat influence the physical world? But influence is total. If it happens at all, it happens 100%…

The predictions have been generated only by calculating the orbits of the moon.

As I've already stated elsewhere in this essay, a 1kg melon held one metre above your head produces 200 times as much tidal effect in your body as does the Moon.[5] Humans have even more mass than melons do, so taking this to its logical conclusion a crowd of thousands at some outdoor event must gravitationally affect the local atmosphere to an enormous degree compared to that of the Moon. The affect of the crowd would swamp that of the Moon. Mass migrations of wildebeests must also influence the weather. Why isn't Mr Ring factoring these variables into his forecasts?

But just to confuse us even more, in another article on his website and in one of his books Mr Ring contradicts his own theory by giving us these 'facts' about Earth's atmosphere:

If it wasn't mixed and distributed by the Moon daily, more of the atmosphere would end up on the Sun's side because the Sun would be the only body in space with any gravitational pull. There would probably be one giant cloud always on the Sun's side, just as there is on Venus, which is why Venus always looks so bright.

[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. [Ken Ring's Predicting the Weather by the Moon]

And Venus isn't bright because of a single giant cloud either. Its entire surface is shrouded in highly reflective clouds that reflect around 76% of the sunlight that strikes them. It's just amazing what Mr Ring doesn't know about astronomy, but that doesn't stop him making things up.

Mr Ring's theory is not implausible, or even completely wrong necessarily. However the end result is that Mr Ring fails to show that the moon's gravity completely swamps that of all other sources, including the Sun, or why this would happen, or most importantly, that it affects the atmosphere to such a degree that it causes our weather. Also the numerous silly mistakes that Mr Ring makes when describing science (as detailed in this essay) gives one little confidence in his scientific ability.

When asked if he could provide evidence for his various silly theories, his replies are revealing:

Well, evidence is not always evidence that suits everybody, and not everything we know to exist can be proven. Can you "prove" love exists?...

Evidence is nearly always subjective because of operator-bias and selective focus...

These days climate science has fallen into such complete disrepute, with once-respected journals shutting out skeptic viewpoints, peer-review only colleagues patting each other on the back, opinion masquerading as fact and sheer incorrectness… as to render "evidence" rather useless, which is why I hesitate to supply any.

But what do I know? I'm just a layperson and perhaps I've got too much of my 'science' from Star Trek.

Perhaps Mr Ring is a scientist and is eminently qualified to challenge modern scientific theories. On attempting to determine what scientific qualifications Mr Ring had, initially all I could find was this:

Posted [on 'Net-weather forum'] by: Ken Ring 30 May 2005.
I am not the fool some try to paint me. I have had 9 years of university science training.

I am not an astrologer, but I think ancient astrology was the foundation of all modern sciences, and because of my university training I am one of the latter.

My peers are not meteorologists, nor scientists, nor anybody university trained, although I have been privileged to have had a university education.

Weather ezine, 4th june 2000.
[Stephen Barnett] Q: I'd like to ask you about your scientific credentials?

[Mr Ring] A: No, I am not a scientist, just an ex-maths teacher who took psychology and anthropology at university and a 20 year hobby interest in the Moon behind me.

On another website Mr Ring lists other occupations that fill in his day, such as author, travelling maths teacher, magician, and, believe it or not, clown. None of these give him the qualifications or experience to claim that "much science has become quackery". Well perhaps that of a clown does.

If you are interesting in reading more on Ken Ring's theory from a scientific perspective, there is an excellent article written for the layperson by astronomer Bill Keir. It's entitled "Does the Moon cause the Weather?" It's from the Auckland Astronomy Society's journal, and can be found online here in three parts: One, Two, Three (via the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine).

On his website Mr Ring brings Bill Keir's article and its criticism of his theory to the attention of his followers and attempts to refute its claims. The item begins:

Witch-hunting Returns.
In retaliation. The Auckland Astronomical Society launched a savage and unwarranted attack on this website…"

From a business perspective it seems rather strange to actively point your potential clients to information that effectively debunks your product. No doubt he does this in the mistaken belief that readers will believe his explanations over that of a mere astronomer. And the use of emotive language to describe his detractors must surely aid his argument:

"Witch-hunting… In retaliation… savage and unwarranted attack… denigrated… evil, pagan and satanic… the Dark Ages… Stalinist Russia… strange attack… Hitler stiff-arm salute".

Bill Keir, Auckland Astronomical Society [AAS]: There are four known forces governing the universe – gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. Of these, gravity is by far the weakest.

Mr Ring: Far from being the weakest force, it is widely accepted that what we commonly call gravity holds the cosmos and universe together

We might compare gravity's strength with that of the three other fundamental forces. Doing so, we find that gravitation is remarkably weak. The weak nuclear force is 10²⁸ — ten billion billion billion — times stronger than gravity. Electromagnetism is one hundred billion times stronger than that, and the strong nuclear force is a hundred times stronger than electromagnetism.

A site on the internet selling Mr Ring's book "Predicting the Weather by the Moon", describes it as "the first book to present sound scientific evidence for the Moon's influence on our weather". Yet Mr Ring has trouble producing this evidence when challenged:

Bill Keir, AAS: The existence of atmospheric tides is problematic. The few studies that claim to have detected them are not conclusive.

Mr Ring: They are only problematic to meteorologists who want to deny the moon has a daily effect on the height of the air. See Appleby and Weekes work on shortwave broadcast signals, in 1939.

We can't see a high AIR tide because we haven't yet invented an instrument to detect it.

"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.

For two or three days at the time of every New Moon, the Moon shields us from the solar wind - that electromagnetic energy force-field put forth by the Sun.

Another example of pseudoscience can be found in the following website article by Mr Ring:

Why do dolphins and whales beach themselves?
the answer may lie in the geomagnetic forces of the moon…

It is conceivable that dolphins and whales use sonar systems to navigate, beamed toward the Moon which provides them with a geomagnetic map.

Returning to Bill Keir's article, he also discovers a problem with "rainfall amounts":

Bill Keir, AAS: He certainly can’t predict rainfall magnitudes successfully, as is obvious in my comparison of his monthly estimates with actual rainfall, for six months in 2004, for the towns for which I had MetService figures.

Mr Ring: Absolutely correct. More careful reading of my work would reveal I make no claim in this regard. The moon method is best suited for predicting the timing of rain rather than amounts.

Bill Keir, AAS: Over five years from 1999 to 2004 I have monitored his forecasts unsystematically and have documented many failures which you never hear him mention.

Mr Ring: A storm system may drop rain in the next valley to the one where the monitorer is watching or even 60 miles away. It is a mute point whether or not a forecast was correct or incorrect for the general area.

"my job is to provide something useful for the farming community".

Mr Ring then goes on to make this amazing admission:

Bill Keir, AAS: He employs an engaging trick with his maps. He publishes two maps for each day, deliberately drawn very differently (using "lunar orbital calculations" of course), and invites you to select the one that matches the reality best. Now wait a minute. Aren’t these maps supposed to be a prediction? Or is this a matching exercise after the event?

Mr Ring: No, and both maps will be found to be correct to within a couple of days of each other. Two cycles are constituted which sometimes get out of phase. The instructions are there. Follow the left or right map that is showing the nearer correlation to that in the newspapers, and project ahead on that side of the page.

Mr Ring criticises the AAS with:

The AAS is not known for its expertise in agriculture. Those who spend their days peering upwards through high-powered telescopes are not going to be approached to comment on what happens day in and day out down on the farm.

Ken Ring is not known for his expertise in agriculture. Those who spend their days peering at the moon are not going to be approached to comment on what happens day in and day out down on the farm.

Is it Astronomy or Astrology?

In my view, the most damming theme that Mr Ring touches on begins with a rhetorical question to the Auckland Astronomical Society [AAS]:

"Why re-open the conflict between astronomy and astrology that last saw vigorous debate in the 1850s?"

Apogee is curious… Perhaps it gives energy to all other aspects of the Moon. It doesn't really matter how. This is a very astrological aspect - how one planet can 'give energy to' another. Some say lunar apogee gives power to ALL the other planets.

astronomy's founding fathers… were all astrologers.

once the occupation of astrologers like Nostradamus and Sir Isaac Newton

Mr Ring's foray into astrology, his acceptance of it and his attempt to integrate it into his theory of weather forecasting, more than any other factor, shows his theory to be utterly bogus.

The more you delve into Mr Ring's articles on his website, the more you realise he is utterly convinced of the validity of astrology:

scientists even today still don’t fully understand the real laws of Gravitation as originally formulated [by Newton], because of their long maintained refusal to recognize the mechanics of fundamental Astrology

When someone points out to Mr Ring that just because people keep buying astrology books doesn't prove it works, he replies:

Ken Ring: Wrong, it proves [astrology] does work or the same people wouldn't keep buying [astrology books]… Many people don't know what astrology is. Astronomy was and still is astrology, and at one stage a doctor had to qualify in astrology first.

In case you're still thinking that Mr Ring is simply acknowledging astronomy's origins in astrology, here are three more quotes from him that make it perfectly clear that we should reject astronomy and return to astrology:

It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to

We are rediscovering answers about… the role that pre-Christian era astrology can still play

there's nothing wrong with basic good old working astrology, with the personal fortune-telling part laid gently to one side, and some might say that it is about time the truth got told.

There are generally four eclipses a year - two solar and two lunar. The lunar nodes are very rich in symbolic meaning and are used extensively in Hindu astrology. It is said they form an axis across the birth chart, often pointing to deep, soul issues or moments of destiny in an unfolding life. The return of the lunar nodes occurs just before the ages of 19, 38, 56, and 75, and certain destiny-making events are supposed to transpire in one's life at these times.

On his website he conveniently provides a link for those that do want the "fortune-telling part":

http://www.astrologyweekly.com
Astrology articles and information updated weekly

And in case you're thinking that unlike real astrologers and horoscopes, Mr Ring never mentions the zodiac, constellations or star signs, in one issue of his Weather EZINE, Mr Ring writes:

I posted an article about the astrology signs the moon moves through, and what general weather often results… "The moon goes across Cancer… Cancer typically brings downpours,… Leo is typically a still sign, not much wind… it is Virgo's turn again to have the moon pass through it. Blustery conditions may develop,… the moon enters Libra and pleasantness may return… Scorpio dictates the potential for severe wet with heavy falls.

Zodiac:
you'll see Mars near the Moon… In the old astrology, Mars heralded dry weather. The Moon is right now passing through the constellation of Sagittarius, also a dry sign. Then it moves to Capricorn… which is also dry, then Aquarius… also dry but changeable, then… the Moon will be in Pisces, a wet sign. You don't have to be an absolute astrology nut to notice that this matches up to what's happening right now.

Other astrological descriptions used by Mr Ring are:

Snow will also come when the so-called cold planets are in special angles to the location, as described mathematically by the famous astrologer Sir Isaac Newton.

The planet [Mercury] is very small, but is traditionally responsible for cold and wind.

All this is plain evidence that Mr Ring's weather prediction method is intimately tied to astrology. While it's possible to take his claims that the Moon's gravitational attraction may have an influence on the weather seriously, his belief that astrology plays the crucial role in explaining this effect shows his research and conclusions to be seriously flawed. If he can't see the fatal flaws in the superstition that is astrology, he has no hope of mastering the complexities of modern science.

Now I realise that his talk of science is only a front and that his predictions are based soley on astrology. There is no science involved, only pseudoscience. Predicting the weather by astrology is as silly as predicting it by plotting the movement of ghosts.

Now I completely understand why he makes vague, open-ended and often contradictory predictions. It allows the people reading his predictions to find the answer they want.
I understand why he can't provide evidence to support his claims and must therefore manufacture bogus data and historical supporters. There is no evidence supporting astrology, only mountains of evidence that debunks it.
I understand why he must demonise scientists and suggest conspiracy theories. He must make his clients suspicious of them and their pagan ways and therefore unwilling to listen to their explanations.

If I have managed to convince you that Mr Ring's method utilises astrology, but you're still not convinced that astrology really is utterly bogus, listed below are 3 short articles that clearly explain why you can safely throw away your horoscopes. They alone should convince you, but if not there are many other excellent websites, books and articles of a skeptical nature that explain why astrology doesn't work and never has.

'Astrology: FACT or FICTION?' By Michael E. Bakich
'Astrology' @ Bad Astronomy
'Your Astrology Defense Kit' @ The Astronomical Society of the Pacific

It's a Pseudoscience because:

Here I expand on the earlier pseudoscience check list, explaining why Mr Ring's theory is a pseudoscience and not a real science. The following are all quotes from Mr Ring's website:

1. Does the discoverer pitch his claim directly to the media?
• I have written more than a dozen books on the weather some of which have reached best-seller status in my country. My Weather mailing list is about 2000.
• Mr Ring also claims to have monthly columns in farming magazines, local newspapers and regular radio and TV Spots.
• My work is out there, for the layman to read.
• I do regularly submit articles to the Herald, Metro and the Listener, but I am largely ignored.
2. Does the discoverer say that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work?
• The Moon and acquiring any further knowledge about it is still actively suppressed
• Also suppressed is any discussion about it, on NZ weather forums or in the newspapers.
• How it works is really rather logical but scientists seem to have a vested interest in not stating it. Possible reasons for this political manoeuvring will soon become clearer.
• Perhaps the universities, the media and the government, in other words The Establishment, do not want another viewpoint popularised.
• Much science has become quackery… They have abandoned open mindedness, suppressed debate, become arrogant and persecutory.
• But mostly disregard what western archaeologists say - they know nothing of any of this… The reason they DON'T look into it is both religious and political.
• I do regularly submit articles to the Herald, Metro and the Listener, but I am largely ignored.
• Meteorology is so bound up with milking money from the public... I believe they don't want people to work this all out for themselves.
3. Is the scientific effect involved always at the very limit of detection?
• We can't see a high AIR tide because we haven't yet invented an instrument to detect it.
• I tell you there is no number crunching evidence because we don't have that kind of technology yet.
• But the technology doesn't exist to do any of this.
4. Do they only offer anecdotal evidence?
• Bill was convinced the atmosphere had something to do with it.
• They always concluded that the weather played some part.
• I lived in northeast China for a while. They always said not to climb mountains before New Moon.
• In old weatherlore there is an old nautical saying: ‘the Full Moon eats clouds’.
• This author thinks it was an earthquake… that finally tipped the balance.
• Testimonials abound on his website, but there is no list of scientific reports, studies, scientists etc that support his claims.
• When animals get grumpy of confused, bad weather is often on the way.
• Sheep kick the shearer the hardest just before bad weather.
• Dear Ken Ring, have been watching you website predictions… You are very very good. Kind regards Lew & Marilyn.
5. Does the discoverer say a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries?
• It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to.
• the moon-weatherforecasting theory has been around since before the pyramids. It is just the western world that has not yet caught up.
• One might say that moon-weather knowledge so old, it can now be considered new again.
• Older cultures and civilisations knew… this
• The forerunner of this information, encapsulated in ancient Talismanic Glyph was once, a very long time ago, so secret the initiate would rather die than reveal it.
• Still alive in those eastern cultures that have retained their lunar calendars.
• Old heathen ideas and theories can at last come up for air without witch-burnings.
• There is evidence in the stone circles that knowledge about the moon surpassed anything that anyone has today.
6. Is the best evidence for the theory decades old?
• See Appleby and Weekes work on shortwave broadcast signals, in 1939.
• Air tides caused by Moon… Dr Harlan T. Stetson, 1938.
• Sir Isaac [Newton], you will remember, wrote the book about gravitation [1687].
• Sir George Darwin… was the most eminent scientist of his day, and he took it upon himself to explain Newton’s work.[circa 1900].
7. Does the discoverer work in isolation?
• I know because I've tried and been told that Moon theories and methods have no place in Our Science.
• I do not have to publish peer-review papers.
• I work from an office right beside my home... I am my own boss.
8. Does the discoverer require us to abandon well established laws of science & proposes new laws of nature to explain an observation?
• "Predicting the Weather by the Moon" reveals… ancient divination techniques.
• Snow will also come when the so-called cold planets are in special angles.
• [gravity is] far from being the weakest force.
• cold air falling pushes up the warm air.
• there are times when Earth's gravitational force is nullified.
• Scorpio dictates the potential for severe wet with heavy falls.
9. Does the discoverer use terms and phrases that make their claims sound scientific, but which are in fact bogus?
• The… planets formed a straight line in the sky… on December 26 [2004]
• the Tangiwai story. On December 24, 1953… the Moon was at 90deg azimuth.
• [gravity is] far from being the weakest force
• cold air falling pushes up the warm air
• dolphins… use sonar… which provides them with a geomagnetic map
• the solar wind - that electromagnetic energy force-field put forth by the Sun.
• there are times when Earth's gravitational force is nullified
• CFCs are… inert gases... and unreactive
10. Is the subject only taught in unaccredited institutions or not taught at all?
• just because [the moon method] is not taught in a university
• There is no university chair of astro meteorology.
11. Does the discoverer make supportive claims that are fabricated?
• Sir George Darwin was the father of Charles Darwin.
• Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides.
• The world's population is 8 billion, and only 5% of them are Christians.
• Our word 'measurement' came from 'moon', and 'meteorology' comes from 'meteor-astrology'.
12. Does it employ the shyness effect: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't?
• This essay clearly demonstrates that his method doesn't work, and when it does appear to work, it's a fluke or selective reading of vague forecasts.
• The forecasts herein are made on a best-of-endeavour basis and carry no claim of 100% accuracy.
• [Abby:] How do you know your results will be correct?
  [Ken Ring:] I don’t, I just hope they are.
13. Do they appeal to ignorance: "There is more out there than you know"?
• Trust me, there are still things you might not yet be aware of.
• There is much to learn about the Moon and her fascinating movements - information most would not have learned at school.
• One wonders what there was to be afraid of.
• maintaining the knowledge status quo.
• perhaps it is just the fear of change.
• skeptics who, rather than investigate the orbits and behaviour of the Moon and correlate that to weather events in any scientific way, find it easier to guffaw and smirk.
• It is totally upsetting to the arrogant westerner that orientals may know more than they… and may even be spiritually on a higher plane.
• Hardly any except for a more enlightened few seem to know about air-tides, gravitational waves and electro-magnetic radiation.
14. Do they attack the critic rather than the criticism?
• [describing the Auckland Astronomical Society's review of his method:] Witch-hunting… In retaliation… savage and unwarranted attack… denigrated… evil, pagan and satanic… the Dark Ages… Stalinist Russia… strange attack… Hitler stiff-arm salute.
• This may be difficult to accept for the arrogant western mind.
• read my website, read my books… I am not going to waste time explaining 27 years of study to a sniggering Philistine.
• I'm not going to explain it to a scoffer, so go figure yourself or change your atitude.
• Research it yourself. What's the matter with you? Are you a baby?
• What a plonker.
15. Do they say things that are largely true but are unrelated to their claims?
• If a very close planet to us [the Moon]… had absolutely NO effect on our atmosphere, yet a few cars running around with exhausts DID…, that would be really weird.
• I am also a member of the Skeptics Society and have twice been keynote speaker at their recent AGMs. This society is dotted with ex-scientists.

Detailed Accounts of Mr Ring Reinterpreting his Failed Forecasts

The BoP Flood was Forecast: I don't think so!

In the following I will analyse various quotes made in Mr Ring's email, using quotes from his Almanac and website. Remember that the text in violet are Mr Ring's actual quotes. My comments follow. (Please note that the layout makes this essay appear a lot longer than it really is. It doesn't actually take long to read. Honest.)

Mr Ring's email reply to the Southland Express and Random House begins with:

Mention was made that I missed the 18 May heavy rain event in the BoP [Bay of Plenty]. I don’t think so.

This statement is false for the following reasons:

1. He failed to predict 'heavy rainfall' on the 18th May. By any normal reasoning this means he missed.
2. He failed to predict any rain at all on the 18th May. This means he missed.
3. He failed to predict any 'heavy rainfall' either one day before or after the 18th May. This means he missed.

How in all honesty can he then go on to dismiss my claim that he failed to predict the 18th May heavy rains with the reply:"I don’t think so". I guess he makes this arrogant and blatantly false assertion on the hope that no one will check it against his actual predictions. Did the Southland Express or Random House staff check them after reading his email or did they simply accept his word that he was right and I was wrong?

For the record, here is Mr Ring's forecast for the 18th May, and one day either side of it:

May 17th: Little or no recordable rain anywhere. Overcast in Whangarei and Invercargill.
May 18th: Fine and dry everywhere except perhaps for a passing shower at or near Dargaville, and cloudy skies in Westland and Southland.
May 19th: Fine everywhere, little or no recordable rain throughout NZ.

Summary for May 2005:
May 17th – 18th: Little or no rain in both islands until 22nd.

His email reply continues with:

It was dry in the BoP on May 15th and started raining on the 16th. The flooding occurred on the 18th.

A glance at my Almanac reveals I predicted dry weather there for 14 [May]

False. His Almanac says:

May 14th: Showers in lower N Is., mainly dry elsewhere.

and rain all over the North Island including BoP on 15 and 16 [May] (p129 and p141).

False. His Almanac says:

May 15th: Showers in N Is, Auckland southward.
May 16th: Showers N of Auckland and BoP, fine Gisborne, HB and Wellington. Elsewhere mainly dry.

This is hardly "all over the North Island". Why can't he even be accurate in quoting his own work? This is further highlighted by the fact that his quoted "p129" is a blank page! Also showers do not cause flooding.

So I was one day out with my timing.

False. As I've already stated, the heavy rainfall occurred on the 18th. He's claiming that he predicted this rain (actually showers), would begin on the 15th. This means he was three days out, not one day as he claims.

I always ask for this grace,

False. In the Southland Express article he said the bulk of his clients were farmers and "anyone who wants to go fishing, to cut hay, or plan a camping trip". His book cover adds: "Planning an outdoor event?"

When farmers want to cut hay, they want to know if it's going to rain TODAY, not tomorrow. When extreme weather hits, being one day out means your freshly cut hay is wet and all your stock are dead. Yet now he's saying his predictions are plus or minus one day! Admittedly he does state this in his book and website, but he generally suppresses this information in the main promotion of his book and method. This "plus or minus one day" is useless for haymaking and other weather critical activities. But even if BoP farmers were prepared to move their stock one day ahead of the actual May floods, we must remember that Mr Ring did NOT predict heavy rainfall, so no farmers actually moved stock or took any precautions, hence damage in the millions of dollars.

If "showers" is Mr Ring's code word for extreme weather, then farmers would be moving stock every other day.

I always ask for this grace, just as the Metservice do, and everyone accepts forecasting is not an exact science.

Here he mischievously links his forecasting method to that of the more reputable MetService, forgetting that his "ancient methods" are not actually a science at all, and bear no relationship to the science that the MetService employs.

Bearing in mind I wrote the book 18 months beforehand, one day is within my expectancy.

Now he appears to suggest that this "plus or minus one day" inaccuracy is due to the fact his predictions were written 18 months prior, implying that if he wrote them closer to the time he would be more accurate. Of course this is the mainstream forecasters' argument exactly, and the reason they don't attempt long-range forecasts. However elsewhere Mr Ring insists that his predictions could have been written "twenty or 200" years ago 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.

As for amounts, the moon method is more about the timing of rain

Even though he has already claimed he didn't miss the May 18th heavy rainfall prediction, he now seems to accept that he did miss it and attempts to explain away his failure. He does this with the claim that his method only predicts when it will rain, not how much rain will fall.
If this is so, then why does he sprinkle his forecasts with words that do describe how much rain will fall? Words such as "heavy falls, large amount of rain, moderate amount of rain, rain, passing showers, showers, showery, light, intermittent showers, little or no recordable rain, and drizzle". If his method can tell us little about the amount of rain, as he claims, is he just making up these descriptions? And if he can't predict rainfall amounts, his predictions are no different than the following: "Next Tuesday, or maybe Monday, or perhaps Wednesday, there may be rain. If there is rain, it will fall somewhere between an annoying drizzle that will make your washing slightly damp to a deluge to rival the Biblical Flood".

However Mr Ring wrote the following in his "WEATHER EZINE febuary [sic] 2001 under a section entitled "Accuracy now better":

Using this lunar longrange forecasting method it is possible to confidently predict droughts and floods FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS FOR ANY DISTRICT IN NZ.

[Note that Mr Ring has added emphasis to this claim by employing capitals]

He states that he originally made this claim during an interview on Canterbury-On-Air Radio. Note once again that he claims that he can "confidently predict… floods… FOR ANY DISTRICT IN NZ." So why doesn't he? Why didn't he predict floods in the BoP in May, for the Hutt Valley in Jan, for Gisborne in Oct and for Gisborne again in Nov? He doesn't seem to grasp that prediction means to say what will happen, before it happens, not to explain why it happened after it happened.

The two preceding claims, not able to predict amount of rainfall yet able to predict floods are completely, utterly and unambiguously contradictory. If one is true, the other must be false, yet Mr Ring employs both. But probably never in the same conversation. When promoting his method he claims to confidently predict floods. On his website he offers a service where for $5 he will tell you the amount of rain that will fall between any two dates, and his Almanac claims "5-year ahead monthly rainfall projections for all areas". But when forced to explain his failures, as in the email, he opts for the opposite stance, admitting that his method can't predict the amount of rain. His contradictory claims really are confusing. Can he or can't he predict rainfall amounts?

So I am pleased to have listed the mid-month rains correctly.

False. I've already shown that this claim is bogus, and yet another forecast from Mr Ring's Almanac reinforces this:

For the whole North Island the longest period without any rain could be the 11 days in the second half of May (pg 16).

The BoP floods clearly fall in this period so no one reading this prediction or the forecasts around May 18th could honestly say that he predicted them. Predicting that it may rain but giving no information about exactly where, when or how much is no different than a guess. Remember that this was extreme rainfall, with Tauranga having its wettest calendar month for any time of the year in more than a century. There is no hint of this in Mr Ring's forecasts, and no reason for his clients to have panicked. And they didn't. Likewise Mr Ring was not on TV and radio trying to warn everyone of this coming disaster. He is guilty of the same crime that he berates mainstream forecasters of in his "WEATHER EZINE December 2, 2005:

So why did the country's "experts" stay perfectly quiet before all the other disasters so far this year?"

Regarding the May BoP floods, the really strange thing is why he didn't drag out the following prediction:

WEATHER EZINE December 29, 2004
Bay of Plenty: Floods in March around 12, 19, 30, also April, May, Nov, Dec

His email then goes on to attack the Metservice:

the Metservice missed the event until when it was actually happening.
the embarrassing absence of rain icons on the Metservice website

Here Mr Ring attempts to shift our attention away from his failure to that of the Metservice. However, what the Metservice did or didn't predict is irrelevant to this discussion. They are not claiming that they got it right, or that they did so one year in advance.

Daily forecasts May 10th to May 19th 2005:
May 10th: Unsettled across both islands. Heavy falls possible in lower N Is., SW coast and Cant. Possibly second wettest day of month.
May 11th: Rain easing. Fine breaks Waikato in N Is and Nelson to Dunedin in S Is. Still wet in south of both islands.
May 12th: Showers and cloudy skies remaining only in N Is and Southland. Elsewhere fine.
May 13th: Little or no rain in N Is. NW winds, showers in Bruce Bay and Queenstown, elsewhere dry and partly cloudy.
May 14th: Showers in lower N Is., mainly dry elsewhere. Over S Is: showers at top, also W and S Otago, mainly dry elsewhere.
May 15th: Showers in N Is, Auckland southward, with W winds. Cloudy whole N Is. Showers Fiordland and S coasts, mainly fine in hydrolakes and Cant.
May 16th: Showers N of Auckland and BoP, fine Gisborne, HB and Wellington. Over S Is. showers W coast, S Cant. and Southland. Elsewhere mainly dry.
May 17th: Little or no recordable rain anywhere. Overcast in Whangarei and Invercargill.
May 18th: Fine and dry everywhere except perhaps for a passing shower at or near Dargaville, and cloudy skies in Westland and Southland.
May 19th: Fine everywhere, little or no recordable rain throughout NZ.

Summary for May 2005:
May will probably be drier than average for the North Is. The N Is should get 30% less rain than its May average. For the N Is the driest spells will probably be 19th - 20th and wettest periods at or near 1st – 3rd and 28th May.
May 13th – 14th: At first no rain in N Is., then coming to both islands, with more in S Is. Generally fine. Over N Is, Masterton, Southland, cloudy with a few drizzle areas. Rest of N Is, fine.
May 15th – 16th: Rain in both islands. Some rain in most places during the day. By 16th, from Ruapehu northwards, occasional rain, then clearing and becoming fine. Rest of N Is mainly fine but drizzle about Wellington and Wairarapa coast.
May 17th – 18th: Little or no rain in both islands until 22nd.

I believe I have shown that most people would agree that on this occasion Mr Ring failed to predict floods, and so I would have expected a reply that said "Our forecasts are just that, forecasts, and we don't claim 100% accuracy. On this occasion we got it wrong". But this wasn't Mr Ring's response, and it would seem that Mr Ring could well contest every example I provide, even though he himself states that 10% to 15% of his forecasts are wrong.

He was a little more forgiving, and might I say, honest, with Abby from Room 4, Y4/5, Waitaki Valley School, Oamaru:

[Abby:] How do you know your results will be correct?

[Ring:] I don’t, I just hope they are.

Isolated torrential downpours and flash floods are the usual interpretation. So we shall see. Perhaps it will be a fizzer, who knows.

The Infamous Cold Snap

Jeff Elton's Southland Express article also stated the following:

The cold snap in Southland and Canterbury on Sep 17 and 18 of this year was an event that Ken predicted twelve months ahead of time. He said farmers who bought his Almanac therefore had loads of time to move stock.

He has trumpeted this claim in other interviews around the country, but once again his Almanac makes no such prediction. Obviously the reporter didn't check this and Mr Ring didn't bother to show him. The following is Mr Ring's prediction, allowing plus or minus one day, and it makes no hint whatsoever of a cold snap in Southland or Canterbury:

Sep 16th: Over S Is, showers in W and S, also Kaikoura, but rest mainly dry.
Sep 17th: Showers in S Is at top, W and N Cant. All other districts mostly dry but becoming unsettled. Cloudy top of S Is, N Cant. and Otago.
Sep 18th: Cloud and showers over most of NZ. Some heavy falls in top and W of S Is.
Sep 19th: Over S Is, brief clearing at top and W, also in S Cant, Otago and Southland.

So how does Mr Ring support his claim to the media? By mischievously ignoring the above daily forecasts and solely quoting part of his summary for Sep 17th – 18th:

Sep 17th – 18th: More rain coming, with some heavy falls of rain and snow in both islands.

By definition a summary should be a concise form of the daily forecasts and their maps, yet Mr Ring's summaries often bear little resemblance to the daily forecasts. They should tell exactly the same story, unless of course he's trying to put a backup forecast in place in case his main forecast fails. This glaring difference between the summary and the daily forecasts is not hard to find in Mr Ring's Almanac.

This ruse may be fine to allow Mr Ring to claim success after the fact, but how does the average reader of his Almanac, like you and me, obtain useful forecasts from these contradictory predictions before the fact?

On a more serious note, Mr Ring has rewritten history. Readers of the Southland Express will now be of the opinion that he did indeed predict the September cold snap of '05. They believe in an event in history that never actually happened.

And now to more Recent Forecasting Problems:

On the 29th Nov 2005 Gisborne was hit yet again with devastating floods. How did Mr Ring's forecasts fare?

Nov 26th: Gisborne/HB rain.
Nov 27th: Showers in Northland and Auckland, Gisborne/HB, Dannervirke, Masterton and Wellington.
Nov 28th: Showers again in Northland, Gisborne/HB, lower parts of N Is, Blenheim and Kaikoura.
Nov 29th: Rain persisting in Northland, Gisborne, Dannervirke and Kaikoura.
Nov 30th: Rain from Northland to Coromandel, sometimes heavy. Showers Gisborne/HB.

Mr Ring will no doubt claim this as a success since rain is predicted throughout this period, but this can only be achieved by selective reading. That is, claiming that "rain and showers" in Gisborne should be interpreted as extreme flooding, whereas "rain and showers, including sometimes heavy rain" in Northland should NOT be interpreted as extreme flooding, or even minor flooding (since we know none occurred).

And what of the Labour Weekend floods that hit Gisborne on Oct 21st, can Mr Ring claim success there? NIWA records that "A major rainfall event [occurred] throughout much of Northland, Auckland, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty on the 20th, spreading to Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay the next day". Mr Ring's daily forecasts were:

Oct 17th: Mostly dry in Far North, E of BoP, Gisborne/HB.
Oct 18th: Clearing in many N Is places but rain persisting in Waikato, King Country and NP to PN.
Oct 19th: Showers in most N Is districts, possible heavy in Taranaki and PN.
Oct 20th: Clearing Northland to Auck, also BoP and Wellington. Showery on W of both islands.
Oct 21st: Mostly dry in Northland, Coromandel, BoP, Gisborne/HB and about Wellington.
Oct 22nd: Much more rain coming, first to King Country and lower N Is.

Oct 17th - 18th: More heavy falls to both islands.
Oct 19th - 20th: Heavy falls in N Is still easing.
Oct 21st - 22nd: Brief easing then more falls coming to both islands.

Again, it's as though you were reading two different forecasts. The daily forecast predicts things like "mostly dry" yet the summary predicts "heavy falls". By ignoring the daily forecasts and just quoting the summary, Mr Ring will probably claim that he predicted the heavy rainfall that caused the Gisborne floods, yet by this reasoning there should have been widespread flooding throughout both islands, since the summary makes no mention of Gisborne only. And why are the two forecasts so different if his method is so accurate? Surely the daily forecast is more detailed than the summary, yet it makes no mention of heavy rainfall in Gisborne. Or heavy rainfall in Northland, Auckland, Coromandel and Bay of Plenty for that matter.

NIWA states that for October "Rainfall in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay, was at least 300 percent of (three times) normal". According to Mr Ring Gisborne's average rainfall for Oct is 65. He predicted it would be 29 for Oct 2005, less than half the average, whereas it was actually three times the average. He wasn't even close with his forecast. I repeat: Not half the rainfall, but three times as much.

It's also strange that, while claiming that his method can't predict actual amounts of rain, he nevertheless sets aside several pages to document exactly how much rain he thinks numerous cities will receive each month.

Still not convinced that Mr Ring can't predict floods? Here is another newspaper report that I stumbled across:

"Heavy rain and floods over southwest North Island ~ 5-6 January 2005: Horowhenua, the Kapiti Coast and the Hutt Valley bore the brunt of a northwesterly storm which brought torrential rain, with severe flooding and damage to property".

Did Mr Ring get it right this time? Let's look at his daily forecasts:

Jan 4th: Fine over much of the country.
Jan 5th: Mostly fine and very warm in most places for at least the next 3 days.
Jan 6th: Apart from showers/fine breaks Whangarei & Gisborne, most areas fine weather
Jan 7th: Mostly fine in N Is.

Summary:
Jan 4th - 5th: Rain easing in both islands.

To sum up, there is no honest way that Mr Ring can claim to have predicted this flood or either of the Gisborne floods. And of course a long-range weather forecast method that can't predict extreme weather is next to useless.

Still more Wet and Dry Weather

I have already shown that Mr Ring's forecasts for the same period and location are often contradictory. As I write this, today's forecast summary (Dec 1st) is typical and begins:

Much rain in N Island, dry at first then a moderate amount in South Island

and finishes with:

Over South Island mostly dry all districts, apart from isolated showers about Motueka.

So we're going to have a moderate amount of rain while remaining mostly dry. Talk about covering all your bases! No wonder he claims such a high success rate. If it rains he's right, if it's dry he's right, if it's both he's still right. Anyone can predict future events if they're this vague. Mr Ring recognises that this contradictory type of forecast is unprofessional and complains about a "wet and dry" forecast by NIWA:

Ring: NIWA's latest 'Three Month Outlook' lists drier conditions September-November, yet on 6 Oct(NZ Herald) they said spring would be soggier - "don't put away your brollies just yet.." So - both drier and wetter from the orthodox meteorologists - this is a successful forecast?

As I glance at the forecast for Dec 2nd, I notice:

Rain, sometimes heavy in Gisborne/HB

So there you go. He is capable of forecasting heavy rain in Gisborne, of describing the amount that will fall. Just not at the right time though.

NZ's Moonman predicts Asian Tsunami. Exactly.

On his website Mr Ring gives 'planetary alignment' as "a good reason for the Asian tsunami", but on internet forums he can be found giving different reasons for the tsunami:

Posted by: Ken Ring 31 May 2005, 07:53 AM
The tsunami was… within 24 hrs of full moon,… northern declination… [and] lunar apogee. That's the coinciding of the peaks of three cycles.

But one of the most surprising statements Mr Ring makes is that of actually predicting the Asian tsunami. Exactly. And this included actually indicating the date:

[Internet forum question]: You have also posted… the reason for the [2004] Tsunami… Yet, you made no prediction for this.

Posted by: Ken Ring 31 May 2005, 01:10 AM
[Ring]: I did. On my ezine. Exactly. What a plonker.

Posted by: Ken Ring 31 May 2005, 07:53 AM
In my ezine of November 15, 2004 I warned that "Interestingly some of the largest earthquakes in recorded history have been when the moon is at or near this extreme once-every-19-year position." So no major flaw, rather, a warning. But I'm not God. I don't know EXACTLY where the earthquake will strike… At least I warned of the possibility and indicated the date.

WEATHER EZINE November 15
the exception is around the 15th/16th… which impacts on earthquake activity. This could be a danger time with the Ruapehu Crater lake… But perhaps a bigger danger time of a lahar will come… around Dec 12th.
Interestingly some of the largest earthquakes in recorded history have been when the moon is at or near this extreme once-every-19-year position

Read this EZINE online (Click on "Read This List" button, then "Previous Messages" then "Weather ezine, November 15, 2004")

WEATHER EZINE December 5, 2004
a danger time with the Ruapehu Crater lake… around Dec 12th.
If an earthquake occurs there, which is very likely… then the crater wall may blow.

WEATHER EZINE December 29, 2004
Earthquake in Jakarta
This terrifying (full moon) earthquake was within a day of apogee. Most earthquakes do occur around new or full moons, and near midnight, midday or early morning.

As of Mar 2006, still no earthquake at Ruapehu, even though we've had plenty new and full moons, midnights, middays, mornings, afternoons, evenings and required angular distances.

Queried as to why he didn't predict the tsunami, he replied: "I did… Exactly" but in the above message he changes this to only accurately indicating the date of an earthquake, not it's location:

I'm not God. I don't know EXACTLY where the earthquake will strike… At least I warned of the possibility and indicated the date.

I'm not God. I don't know... where the earthquake will strike.

Mr Ring should employ this statement more often regarding the weather in general.

Mr Ring welcomes support, not debate

In his email Mr Ring claims:

I welcome further debate on this matter

We do wonder what their problem is. No one is threatening the respectable Society. Have they heard of live and let live?

The AAS should exist as a forum for debate…

In an article in a farming magazine he claimed the following:

Despite Mr Ring's views he doesn't want to get into "a slanging match" with meteorologists but he would prefer they did not pour cold water on alternate theories.

Mr Ring said he has continually put out the call for a "square-off" with meteorologists so that once and for all this question can be settled.

What Mr Ring really seems to welcome is support, not debate,and when a reader on the 'NetWeather.TV — Weather Forum' said they would like to know more about his method, he replied:

I suggest you first read my website. Don't read what others have said about me on the net on other websites because they have not studied any part of the method in length and are just looking for reasons to scoff, and for that reason they misquote me and then react emotionally to their own misquoted and distorted interpretations. The result is indeed gibberish, so they achieve their aim!
Ken Ring

No Follow-Up on Predictions

Jeff Elton's Southland Express article detailed Mr Ring's following prophecy:

The most significant weather event that Ken predicts for 2006 is a cyclone Bola strength storm that will hit the east coast of the North Island from March 17 to 19. He said the storm will create havoc in low-lying areas.

Update: March 2006 has now passed and surprise, surprise, no 'cyclone Bola strength storm... hit the east coast of the North Island". It's a shame that the Southland Express and other media outlets that also publicised this claim rarely write follow-up articles on topics dealing with predictions.

Some of Mr Ring's other Strange Beliefs

Is it just in the 'weather arena' that Mr Ring is in conflict with conventional views of science, history etc? No, not by any means. Mr Ring believes in, supports and researches all manner of New Age superstitions and is not opposed to the odd conspiracy theory. Mr Ring seems to target those of like mind, those that are more comfortable believing they live in the "cosmos" rather than the "universe", are enthralled by ancient mysteries and prefer "common sense" explanations to scientific ones. For example his website provides a link to an "alternative history" site:

Prehistory of NZ from the point of view of ancient stone circles several thousand years old. www.celticnz.co.nz.

It seems that the prehistory of NZ needs to be written.

the large ancient stone circle… near Dargaville… could be further proof of the existence of the Indo/Egypto/European culture in NZ many thousands of years ago.

[These] elusive white-skinned… peoples… were hunted to extinction… There were maps of the southern ocean in existence 20,000 years ago… It is very likely that Euro/Indy traders from ancient times distributed work-gangs of many races, including Asian, Melanesian and Polynesian peoples all over the Pacific to establish colonial outposts... Even Captain Cook believed the Maori were brought to NZ as slaves.

mostly disregard what western archaeologists say - they know nothing of any of this…

World famous Woodman's Weatherstick, imported from USA. Pin to an outside wall and watch what weather is coming up. When stick bends up - fine weather coming. When it bends down - expect rain. Really works. $14.95

The author of many books, Mr Ring fails to mention on his weather website that he is also the author of this piece of New Age mumbo-jumbo:

Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws.

How to tell your cat's character and destiny by reading its palm, er I mean paw. Includes numerology, astrology, handwriting analysis (scatchings) [sic] and love-bumps on the head.

Pawmistry brings you close to the age-old tools of divination and explains how to interpret your cat's true nature through colour, paws, head shape and claw marks. It also explores the psychic influences that numerology and the zodiac have on your cat - and on you.

By Ken Ring, co-written with Paul Romhany

Another Web site selling Mr Ring's book provides more information:

Dismayed by the glaring lack of literature on the psychological complexities of [cats]… Ring… began experimenting with age-old tools of divination to open a window into a cat's inner self.
Ken Ring first discovered palmistry for cats at a psychic party two years ago. He has since devoted much time to conducting research in this revolutionary new field.

None of that is true, sorry.

I don't know anything about psychic parties, yet you tell me I used to frequent them.

... In addition to learning the secrets of your cat's paws, you will also discover how to use numerology, astrology and skullistry to determine your cat's true nature.

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, where he was able to deliver a reading of a cat's paw that proved to be uncannily accurate.

your made-up stuff again, not my beliefs

I have no experience of any of them

So clearly Mr Ring is lying. Either to his readers about his discovering palmistry for cats at a psychic party and his sincere belief in divination techniques such as numerology and astrology, or he is lying to me in an attempt to hide his belief in superstitious nonsense from those that might buy his weather forecasting books.

Note the important similarities in how Mr Ring approaches forecasting the weather and understanding cats:

• Both weather and a cat's destiny are explained by a superstition, e.g. astrological signs.
• Both can be understood by using 'age-old tools of divination'.
• Both are revolutionary new fields that Mr Ring has since devoted much time to conducting research into.

If you laugh at a guy that seriously suggests that you give a paw reading to your cat, how can you defend his credibility when it comes to similar research into the weather using ancient divination techniques?

Each one of these flaky beliefs that Mr Ring supports just strengthens our claim that he has great trouble separating real science from pseudoscience and scams.

I believe I have clearly shown that:

• forecasts made by Mr Ring, effectively taken at random, do not tally with the actual weather that occurred
• he has been less than honest when attempting to defend his past forecasts
• he grossly misrepresents the potential accuracy of his forecasts
• he incorporates discredited astrological beliefs into his forecast theory, which is nothing more than pseudoscience
• while claiming to welcome debate, Mr Ring instead welcomes only support
• in a manner identical to psychics, he relies on people forgetting his many failures, but remembering his rare hits
• Mr Ring's work is littered with innumerable errors, especially involving science, which demonstrates poor understanding and incompetent research, all of which completely destroys Mr Ring's credibility
• His promotion of psychics, astrology, numerology, palmistry, graphology, phrenology etc, and his palm reading book for cats demonstrates that he has great difficulty separating fact from fantasy

The promotion of Ken Ring's long-range weather predictions by the media with no follow-up that would expose his failures puts him in the same camp as psychics and mediums. Actually the tricks that psychics and mediums use have a lot in common with the wording of Mr Ring's forecasts and the way he attempts to rationalise his mistakes, turning them into successes. Just as psychics claim to have predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks and President Kennedy's assassination etc, so Mr Ring claims to have predicted most of our extreme weather events. However this is always done after the event with selective and imaginative reading of their original forecasts. These people vigorously suppress their mistakes and imaginatively reinterpret their vague predictions after the fact.

However it is blatantly obvious that Mr Ring's forecasts are no better than guesses. By sheer chance he will guess correctly sometimes and he will trumpet these successes for all they're worth, but the majority of the time he will be wrong. And when it comes to extreme weather causing loss of life and destruction of property, even he admits that he can only predict rain, not how much. Unfortunately he can't even do that.

Mr Ring's weather predictions fail. When and if he is forced to explain his failures he mischievously reinterprets forecasts, suppresses negative forecasts and simply invents forecasts that were never made, all in such a way as to make it appear that his apparent failure was actually a success. Although he claims publicly and often that he can predict droughts and floods 20 years ahead, if pushed into a corner over failed predictions he also refers you to disclaimers in his book that effectively deny this ability. Thus he believes the 'fine print' resolves him of any responsibility for these ongoing failures. Unfortunately the public seldom hear of these failures and when they do they believe they are rare occurrences rather than the norm.

The fact is that most people can put up with unexpected drizzle, it's the extreme weather that we want to know about, and if a forecast method can't predict weather that may cause loss of life and/or destruction of property, it's next to useless. As his latest Almanac is now in the shops, I suggest people save themselves $44.95 and leave it there. Spend the money on promoting your own lifestyle, not Ken Ring's.

I will give one final example of Mr Ring's duplicity. On his website Mr Ring provides a page that begins:

Weather for your Event
Planning an [sic] wedding, or other event? …

Longrange forecasting is more about trends over a 3-4 day window, yet we do try to get it as correct as possible. In the old days people were not required to be somewhere at, say, 2pm on a particular Friday; it was more a case of needing to know if big rains were expected later one week or early in the next.

A specific event, at a specific time, on a specific day.

But hidden within the article is a disclaimer that states that he really hasn't got a hope of being that specific.

Authors:   John L. Ateo,   Jason C.
Copyright © 2007, by the 'SILLY BELIEFS' website. All rights reserved.

Reader's Comments:    Add a Comment      View Comments ~~ 71 Comments

References

[1] Predict Weather.com, Ken Ring's website

[2] 'The Lunar Code: How the Moon affects the Weather on Earth', Ken Ring

[3] 'Ken Ring's Predicting the Weather by the Moon', Ken Ring

[4] 'Ken Ring's Predict Weather Almanac and Isobaric Maps', Ken Ring

[5] 'Conceptual Physics', Paul G. Hewitt