Readers' Comments:        Add a Comment        Return to Article

Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email.

Comments:

71. Comment by Anonymous-1, 10 Apr, 2010

    HI
    Scientists and meteorologists give no credence to Mr Ring because he shows up their incompetence over and over again. His predictions are closer to the actual than theirs.

72. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Apr, 2010

    The argument that scientists and meteorologists are afraid of Ring's claimed success is nothing but a conspiracy theory, with no evidence to support it.

    The conflict between science and pseudoscience is no different to the conflict between biologists and creationists, doctors and faith healers, and the police and psychic detectives. Only in the minds of a gullible few do creationists, faith healers, psychic detectives and Ken Ring appear to produce results that rival conventional methods. And they all consistently fail to produce evidence of their claimed successes. Ken Ring repeatedly says he prefers to talk to farmers and fishermen rather than scientists and meteorologists. To anyone who examines his methods it is obvious why. Ring and his supporters will remain on the lunatic fringe as long as he fails to produce scientific evidence, and refuses to engage with those that could evaluate and potentially validate his method. Ken is more interested in selling his books than winning a Nobel Prize.

73. Comment by Colin, 27 Apr, 2010

    I have monitored Ken Ring's weather forecasts for different periods over many years. During this time Ken Ring has had numerous spectacular disasters.

    Examples for Whangarei rainfall:

    Jan 07. Ken's forecast 425 mm. Actual 60 mm. 14% of his forecast.
    Feb 07. Ken's forecast 173 mm. Actual 108 mm. 62% of his forecast.
    Mar 07. Ken's forecast 46 mm. Actual 311 mm. Nearly seven times his forecast.
    

    In Nov 2003 Ken forecast that Dec 03, Jan, Feb and Mar 04 would be "wetter than average".

    Nov 03 Actual 31 mm. Average 94 mm Far drier - one third of forecast.
    Jan 04 Actual 84 mm. Average 84 mm Same - neither wetter nor drier.
    Feb 04 Actual 169 mm. Average 92 mm Far drier - slightly over half the average.
    Mar 04 Actual 0 mm. Driest ever - no rain at all.
    

    July 2007 rainfall:

    9th - 0.4 mm Ken's forecast - dry
    10th - 105 mm. Ken's forecast - dry
    11th - 95 mm Ken's forecast - dry
    12th - 8 mm Ken's forecast - dry
    13th - 0 mm Ken's forecast - dry
    14th - 13 mm Ken's forecast - dry
    15th - 36 mm Ken's forecast - dry
    

    In other words Ken Ring forecast seven consecutive dry days during which time a total of 257 mm of rain fell.

    Tossing a coin would produce better results.

74. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 May, 2010

    The recent floods in Southland, especially around Invercargill, and at present in Queenstown, motivated us into seeing how Ken Ring did in predicting these extreme weather events. The Southland floods hit the TV news on Tuesday, 27th of April, and were caused by heavy rain on Sunday and Monday, 25th and 26th of April. So how close was Ken? Did he predict the floods, or at least heavy rain, and give farmers time to move stock and winter-feed out of the path of the rising water, and Queenstown shopkeepers time to fill sandbags? Not surprisingly, no he didn't.

       24th April: Actual weather: Occasional showers. Ken's prediction: Dry
    25th April: Actual weather: Continuous heavy rain. Ken's prediction: Dry
    26th April: Actual weather: Continuous heavy rain, extreme flooding. Ken's prediction: Dry
       27th April: Actual weather: Mainly fine, occasional shower, extreme flooding. Ken's prediction: Showers
       28th April: Actual weather: Mainly fine, occasional shower. Ken's prediction: Light showers
    

    In his almanac, under the section entitled 'Extreme Weather — April', south of the SI, where Ken predicts extreme weather that can range anywhere from fog and frost to downpours and floods, he predicts a 'Downpour' on the 13th, nearly a fortnight prior to the floods, but at the actual time of the floods, there is no prediction of any rain. Every day is labelled 'Frost'. According to Ken's ancient astrological wisdom, there will be no floods in April. Oops. Likewise, his daily 'Rain Potential' maps for each day covering the time of the floods give the slim possibility of light showers on the coast on the 25th and nothing on the 26th, whereas both days had heavy, continuous rain. His 'Monthly Rain' prediction for April in this part of the SI was: '45% drier' than normal.

    While Ken often argues that he is still right even if he is several days and up to a week out with his predictions, or if it does flood in a nearby province, it should be pointed out that no floods were predicted anywhere near — either in time or location — to the actual floods. Ken once again failed miserably. It just amazes us that people take him seriously and argue that he truly can predict the weather. Ken Ring couldn't predict high winds from the eye of a hurricane.

    I'm sure some Ring groupies will write to note that they asked Ring to predict a sunny Saturday for their wedding or a fishing trip, and while it did actually rain a little on their special day, there was a lovely sunny day two days later on Monday, and both they and Ken Ring claim that that is close enough. Yeah right, sure it is. It's like believing a lottery ticket number that is just two digits from the winning ticket is still a winner. Try telling that to the lottery officials.

    And let's remember that it is extreme weather events such as floods and droughts that the likes of farmers want to know about. In general they couldn't care less about a light drizzle or a little fog or a slight frost. They want to know if they should move stock to higher ground or if they can cut their hay or harvest a crop. Ken should come down to Southland and explain to those farmers that might have been silly enough to believe in his weather almanac how 'dry' weather causes their bales of winter feed to be surrounded by some wet stuff with ducks floating in it.

75. Comment by Colin, 03 May, 2010

    Another dramatic Ken Ring faux pas, especially as 26 July 2008 was a Saturday.

    Mr Ring's forecast for 26 July in Whangarei was "dry", and for the 48 hours both before and after was for "light intermittent showers" — a good day to choose for a wedding.

    In fact Saturday July 26th produced a weather bomb involving huge rainfall and the deepest low to hit New Zealand for more than a decade. Whangarei received 120 mm of rain in 24 hours. Flooding was widespread with the business area evacuated.

76. Comment by Steve, 24 Jun, 2010

    Hi John, love the Silly Beliefs page on Ken Ring.

    Do you have any data from Ken Ring's predictions in an electronic form? The more the better.

    I've just discovered that NIWA provide free access to historical weather measurements: 'http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/'

    I'm a statistician (and skeptic). So, if I can get my hands on a large amount of Ken's prediction data, I'd like to test it against actual measurements.

77. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jun, 2010

    Hi Steve, thanks for your comments. No sorry, we don't have any of Ring's predictions in electronic form. We've had to consult his almanacs. He does put some of his basic predictions online in his 'Weather ezine'. They go from 2000 to 2009.

    I'm assuming he probably wouldn't be willing to release data that could allow easy, large-scale comparisons with the real world. Ring of course claims that these checks have already been performed, but only by himself it seems, and not by an independent expert, such as a statistician.

    Of course as we both know anybody that really believed in their system and wanted to convince a skeptical audience would readily release their data to prove their claims, so you could always ask Ring for a copy. Ring's past data is now history, public knowledge in his almanacs, and of no commercial value, so an unwillingness to divulge it would suggest he might be afraid of what it would reveal.

    It certainly would be interesting to see a real, scientific check of ALL of Ring's predictions, but we won't hold our breath that Ring will assist in this endeavour.

78. Comment by vIQleS, 25 Jun, 2010

    'Silly Beliefs' said:

    "We're not saying you shouldn't charge for your work, we're just saying that people shouldn't buy it. If people want to waste their money after they've been warned, then that's their prerogative, we're just wanting them to be better informed while considering your product."

    I'd go one further than that... I _don't_ think he should be selling this product.

    Regardless of whether you have a genuine belief that what you are doing works or not, it is clearly unethical (and in many cases illegal) to sell or promote something as working when it does not. Psychics would be a prime example - many of them sincerely believe that they have real powers, but if they can't demonstrate said powers under sensible observing conditions then they have no business taking money from people. (See also "dowsing rod bomb detectors")

    Ken said:

    "I suppose my card-carrying membership of both the Rationalists Association and the Skeptics Society (even have been keynote speaker at not one, but two, of the latter's past conferences) means nothing to your warped view of what you think I am or how I think. In your mind I am the horned devil himself, intent on perverting all intelligent thinkers with my fanatic New Age weirdness."

    I happen to be a committee member of the NZ Skeptics, and I've talked with some of the other members about Ken. Apparently he did a talk on Global Warming, with which no one was impressed. (It consisted primarily of the pathetic arguments that we've seen here, and others that are about as convincing).

    Apparently he also talked about:

    "...a parody book he'd written - Pawmistry - about palmistry for cats. He wrote it as a joke, but a surprising number of people took it seriously."

    "This was well before his current career as a long-range weather forecaster."

    Apparently KR also appeared as dinner entertainment for one conference. (Doing magic / mentalism). He has never been a keynote speaker. (It's not usual for there to even be a keynote speaker at the NZS conventions).

    On a side note re GW - it's interesting that KR is able to cite a huge, world-wide conspiracy about GW and then in almost the same breath bring up what happened when the media got wind of (apparently) an actual cover up / data fabrication.

    Clearly, the evidence that we have strongly demonstrates the self-correcting nature of the scientific process.

    Ken said:

    "...and publicly slander me by actual name. I have never done that to anyone, especially not you, and I challenge anybody anywhere to show where and when and if I have done so."

    A random sampling from comments made _after_ the above:

    "Why? Because it is an act of sheer bullying, of mini-terrorism and of a moralising rednecked thicko."

    "...cooked the books and fiddled the figures..."

    "I have no desire to be peer-reviewed by frauds and liars."

    [It's worth noting that what we're talking about is Libel. Slander is spoken; if it's written down it's Libel.]

    The following is an attempt to simply explain libel. I am not a lawyer.

    Libel is: Saying something about someone (in print) that is false (and may cause them harm - e.g. distress or loss of business)

    E.g. Calling someone a fraud or a liar is potentially libelous.

    If you claim that someone "fiddled the figures" they can attempt to sue you for libel.

    If they can demonstrate that they did not, in fact, fiddle any figures - then you have libeled them and they will win the case.

    If you can demonstrate that they did fiddle the figures, then you haven't libeled them (i.e. what you said was true) and you will win.

    Also - If you claim that someone has "publicly slander[ed] me by actual name", and said person has not, then you can be sued for libel (or slander).

    Libel is not:

    If I say "Ken Ring publishes a book", this is not libel, because it is true.

    If I say "Ken Ring claims the weather is caused by the moon", this is also not libel - because it is also true.

    If I say that "Predicting the weather based on the phases and position of the moon has not been scientifically demonstrated", this is also not libel.

    This is not libel (IMHO) because it does not reference a person or organisation. And also because it is true.

    (It may also be interpreted as my opinion which may also make it not libel)

    If I state that a particular book is a scam and that the author is knowingly conning people - these are statements that could be potentially libelous.

    However - if I then proceed to back up these statements with quotes (that can be checked and verified) where the author has contradicted himself, lied, and misrepresented his book and or his predictions, and show how the scientific evidence demonstrates that the book is clearly wrong then its no longer libel because it's true.

    Explanation of ad hominem:

    The fallacy of ad hominem (what KR has been referring to as personal attacks) is when, in an argument or debate, the arguer attacks an opponent _instead_ of addressing their arguments or statements.

    The two key points are:

    The argument is ignored

    and

    The person making the argument is criticised _instead_

    If I said: "Ken Ring (who is a person) personally writes a book (that is a book that he wrote himself), and in that book he personally wrote the following, which is factually inaccurate..."

    That would not be a personal attack, because my arguments and comments are intended to discuss (and debunk) the claims and arguments in the book.

    Criticising a persons ideas, beliefs, claims, opinions, or ability to predict the future is not a personal attack.

    Calling someone "like a mad snarling dog", "a self-appointed watchdog", a "bully", "arrogant", "inquistorial"(sic), and statements like: "erected 3 websites dedicated to jackbooting me", "...because you have set yourself up as their adviser"(sic) and:

    "I have honestly never in my life read such hysterical ranting, all in the name of feeling threatened, with what? My alternative viewpoint? Jeez man, your inquistional (sic) fantasies are running mad. You have caught yourself in a web of your own making, like a spider trapped in his own gluey footprint. "

    (And much of the rest of that letter) are all examples of ad hominem. They say nothing about the quality or validity of the arguments or criticisms raised, but simply try to denigrate the person that is criticising you.
79. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Aug, 2010

    This week we received an extraordinary email from Ken Ring that he believes explains why we are criticising him for no apparent reason. We've written about it in our blog: Ken Ring reveals evil conspiracy.

80. Comment by Anonymous-2, 13 Sep, 2010

    Perhaps you should eat your very scientific words eh....... did you feel the earthquake predicted by Ken ring or did I just imagine it. ?....silly me

81. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Sep, 2010

    What scientific words? What earthquake did Ken predict? What did you imagine? Perhaps you could be a little clearer in what you're trying to say.

82. Comment by Anonymous-3, 15 Sep, 2010

    How absolutely absurd it would be to suggest the moon affects the earth, hell it's only responsible for the tides and life in general through slowing the rotation of the earth enough to support temperate seasons.

    Sun and Moon Trigger Deep Tremors on San Andreas Fault

83. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Sep, 2010

    Like Ring himself, you obviously haven't read our article, nor do you understand our argument. Your suggestion that we claim the Moon's gravity doesn't affect the Earth is utterly false and insulting.

    We have never said that the Moon's gravity would have no affect on earthquakes, we've said that Ken Ring can not predict when and where these earthquakes will appear. We are not debunking the Moon, but Ken Ring.

    And your comprehension of the article you linked to seems to be questionable as well. You apparently offer it as proof that scientists have found that the moon causes our earthquakes and that they can be predicted, as Ken Ring claims. However, the article clearly states:

    'Though tides raised in the Earth by the sun and moon are not known to trigger earthquakes directly, they can trigger swarms of deep tremors, which could increase the likelihood of quakes on the fault above the tremor zone, the researchers say.'

    "But it seems like it must be very subtle, because we actually don't see a tidal signal in regular earthquakes. Even though the earthquake zone also sees the tidal stress and also feels the added periodic behavior of the tremor below, they don't seem to be very bothered."

    'In fact, the shear stress from the sun, moon and ocean tides amount to around 100 Pascals, or one-thousandth atmospheric pressure, whereas the pressure 25 kilometers underground is on the order of 600 megaPascals, or 6 million times greater.'

    So while gravity from the sun and moon may have an influence on earthquakes, they are not the main cause and they can't be predicted, contrary to what Ring asserts.

    Ken Ring was asked: 'How is it you can predict earthquakes too?', and he replied: 'Predicting earthquakes requires a lot of calculation, which I did a few years ago one month ahead for three earthquake events in this country.'

    Here Ring claims to have predicted not one, not two, but three earthquakes successfully, and yet still no one believes him. And if he did the calculations it can't be that hard. But then regarding earthquake prediction Ring contradicts himself because he adds, 'The point is, it is possible but it would require cooperation between geologists, astronomers, and probably astrologers, but I doubt that anybody would fund such an enterprise.' He, the lone astrologer, easily and cheaply predicted three earthquakes, but now he claims that prediction would actually require expensive consultation with geologists and astronomers as well. He changes his story too often for us to be able to believe anything he says.

    And surely predicting the recent Canterbury earthquake, not to mention the Haiti quake which claimed 230,000 lives, would have gained him more fame and fortune than predicting a light drizzle in Auckland does. If Ring could truly predict earthquakes, then a Nobel Prize awaits him. But it seems he's not interested, too busy predicting frosts to worry about saving lives.

84. Comment by Ken Ring, 20 Sep, 2010

    But I did predict the earthquake, and was on the radio the day before with the prediction for a big earthquake in the South island. Read my article on it

    http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home

    Later on his show, Marcus Lush congratulated me with the prediction.

    The Christchurch earthquake, subsequent aftershocks, Hurricane Igor and all the smaller cyclones north of the equator, the wild weather in NSW and the wild, windy, snowy extreme weather in NZ currently petering out are/were all part of the same system, being that the moon was the second closest to earth for the year and is now hot-footing it to being the fourth furthest away, a situation causing international turbulence in land, sea and air. Add to that the run-up to equinox and you have a predictable scenario for damage. The southern hemisphere has been most affected because the moon has been over it. It will be Ireland’s turn for rain and floods next week.

    Of course most geologists and meteorologists on state salaries would always deny that any of this is predictable, because they get paid more for reportage than for trend analysis. If sea-tides ruled our fiscal lives as much as weather and ground shocks do, then presumably extreme sea-tides would also be ruled unpredictable. Thankfully commercial tide tables are available which prove that massive forces controlling these huge bodies of matter are in fact cyclic and measurable.

    Just as glass is a liquid, so air and land are flows and in constant flux due to lunar and solar forces, and air and land are bodies of matter of less and more viscosity than water. To suppose that the moon does not shift them all around without bias is to suppose the moon has intelligence and preferences. Talk about silly beliefs! Just because science has no fundable agendae to investigate the land and air tides does not negate them. Science has not gone there simply because to do so was always considered anti-Christian and anti the God that makes everything happen by His Almighty Hand. When scientists were hunted down like rabbits and slaughtered it is wiser to change the truth than to die.

    There are more shakes coming. Earthquakes are predictable, as tides are. We’re talking about another type of tide, this time underground. The Earth has two moons, one above in the sky and one the same size, a ball called the inner molten core. It doesn’t need a supercomputer to work out where and when earthquakes will appear. You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team; one to work out where the moon will be and one to work out where the drums are starting to pop. One to work out the target and one to drop the bomb. I’ve proven it can be done. I’ve also predicted when the next shakes will cluster. But one thing that neither astrologer nor geologist can tell is how far down the faults will separate. That is the wild card.

85. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Sep, 2010

    Just more lies and myths Ken, but thanks for the opportunity to debunk your claims some more. You say you predicted the devastating Canterbury earthquake, and yet this 'prediction' was only made on an obscure radio station that can't even be received in Canterbury. Furthermore, the people who paid good money for your almanac weren't given this warning. Why not Ken? They paid for your advice and you withheld it from them, and yet you gave it away for free to a handful of people in Auckland. Why did you think they would be interested but not those in Canterbury?

    You claim, 'But I did predict the earthquake... a big earthquake in the South island'. Bullshit! Here is the vague, all encompassing prediction that you say you gave the day before the disastrous Canterbury earthquake: "you'll be reading about floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so, particularly the South Island ..and this time next week things will start to ease off and we'll get the aftermath."

    You didn't just say 'earthquake', you said 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow'. Earthquakes were third on your list, and what happened to the floods, winds and snow? You didn't say that they would be of disaster proportions. You didn't say 'big earthquake', you just said 'earthquake', which are happening all the time. You didn't say Christchurch or Canterbury, you said 'particularly the South Island', which also includes the North Island. You didn't say that a disastrous earthquake would strike Canterbury the very next day, you merely said that all of NZ, and particularly the South Island, would get 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so'. But you did say that floods, winds and snow would hit as well over the next couple of weeks. They didn't. We must assume they were also to be of disaster proportion since your disaster earthquake prediction was among them.

    Like psychics, you make lots of vague statements — 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow' — 'particularly the South Island' — 'over the next week or so' — and then cherry pick an event that did happen while burying all your false predictions. Then after the fact you claim, 'But I did predict the earthquake', even though you never mentioned a disastrous earthquake, you never mentioned Christchurch, you never mentioned Sept 4th. Stop inventing the past Ken.

    And what's this nonsense: 'geologists and meteorologists on state salaries would always deny that any of this is predictable, because they get paid more for reportage than for trend analysis'. You're confusing reporters and paparazzi with geologists and meteorologists. They spend their days on 'trend analysis', trying to determine what conditions lead to what effects. To claim that they are just reporting on what they saw yesterday is a slur against their professionalism.

    You also imply that both we and science are doing our best to deny that there is such a thing as sea and land tides caused by the sun and moon, when in fact it is science that discovered the source of these tidal forces and measured them. Not astrologers. You also suggest that our belief that the moon's gravity doesn't noticeably affect humans or the weather means that we must believe that 'the moon has intelligence and preferences' and is consciously picking what it affects. Only a person with your primitive and superstitious beliefs could believe something as ridiculous as that.

    Then you do your best to spread more urban myths and lies. First myth, that glass is a liquid. As the conclusion to this article debunking this myth states: 'Glasses are amorphous solids... Structurally, glasses are similar to liquids, but that doesn't mean they are liquid'. Stop believing everything some idiot tells you Ken.

    You then falsely and naively state: 'Just because science has no fundable agendae to investigate the land and air tides does not negate them. Science has not gone there simply because to do so was always considered anti-Christian...' Bullshit Ken. Who do you think has accurately measured the distortion caused by the moon's tidal forces Ken, scientists or silly astrologers looking for the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?

    And then you add this blatant lie to support the work of astrologers: 'Science has not gone there simply because to do so was always considered anti-Christian... When scientists were hunted down like rabbits and slaughtered it is wiser to change the truth than to die'. Come on Ken, this never happened and you know it. In fact you keep reminding anyone who will listen that not just great scientists like Newton and Kepler were astrologers, but that 'all scientists were astrologers first and foremost, and... Sir Isaac Newton described astrology as the first science'. But how could astrologers like Newton and Kepler and 'all scientists' have achieved what they did if they were in fact 'hunted down like rabbits and slaughtered' for dabbling in astrology? Are lies the only way that you can support your insidious scam Ken?

    You falsely claim that 'Earthquakes are predictable, as tides are. We're talking about another type of tide, this time underground'. Rubbish. Earthquakes are the sudden movement of the earth's crust and are explained best by plate tectonics.

    And what's this nonsense: 'The Earth has two moons, one above in the sky and one the same size, a ball called the inner molten core'. Yes, the earth has a core, but it's not a moon. A moon is a satellite of a planet Ken. Also your description of this core is wrong. The inner core is solid, not molten, it is the outer core that is liquid or molten. Furthermore the inner core is smaller than the moon and the entire core is twice the diameter of the moon. Stop referring to your ancient astrology books Ken, as you can see, they're full of errors.

    You then say that 'It doesn't need a supercomputer to work out where and when earthquakes will appear. You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team... I've proven it can be done'. No you haven't, and previously you've claimed that prediction would require 'cooperation between geologists, astronomers, and probably astrologers'. Why don't you need astronomers any more? If you've already correctly predicted earthquakes then you've proven that you don't need the help of either geologists or astronomers. You're getting tripped up on your own lies Ken.

    In your article you stated that 'Anyone living in Christchurch who might be reading this would probably be able to confirm a feeling of high ground energy that would have been prevailing all through the earthquake week, but then went on the wane, headaches disappeared, kids became calmer, people more able to catch up on sleep, a change in energy pulse. There are skeptics who don't believe in this sort of thing, and they're entitled to their views, but equally there are those who do believe who are also entitled to their outlook on it'. What New Age nonsense is this Ken — 'high ground energy' followEd by 'a change in energy pulse'? What planet are you from? Of course you're entitled to your view, as you agree as are we, and our view is that this is talk one would expect from a medieval peasant who was dropped on his head as a child, repeatedly. Have you not heard of the psychological notions such as stress and fear that would increase after a disaster and wane as things returned to normal? Why do you have to imagine some invisible mind altering energy pulse emitted by earthquake fairies?

    In your article published on 18th Sep, 2010, you assert that 'The Christchurch earthquake... and the wild, windy, snowy extreme weather in NZ currently petering out are/were all part of the same system'. What happened to your crystal ball Ken? Starting early on the 18th Invercargill received its worst snowfall for at least 50 years, causing the collapse of the $10 million dollar Southland Stadium, and the entire country was racked with vicious storms and floods. And yet according to you any extreme weather that might be anywhere in NZ was 'petering out'. Your 'Extreme weather not yet in the news' webpage has this to predict about this period: 'September: Third week: About 15th, floods in Afghanistan; about 16th, late frosts affect stone fruit, about 20th, floods in Waipa River'. In your almanac for the 17th Sept your map says there is a chance of frost or snow, you won't commit to which, although it's mostly likely frost rather than snow, as the text states: 'Fine in ... Southland'. And for the 18th you predict that there is no likelihood of frost or snow, also nothing for the 19th, 20th and 21st. And yet, hail storms on the 17th and then the worst snowstorm for 50 years. Isn't it a little embarrassing Ken that you would completely miss such extreme weather? Apart from boosting your bank account Ken, what use are predictions that are so wrong?

    And here's another of your science bloopers: 'As all of force is mass x acceleration, it is presumably the mass of the moon (greater when in perigee because it is closer) combined with the accelerating speed (of orbit relative to the orbit of the earth) which could apply enough force to separate tectonic plates'. The mass of the moon does not increase when it is closer to the earth, it stays constant. And anyway, we thought you reckoned it was the force of gravity that caused earthquakes, which is 'directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them', not mass times acceleration. And why in your explanation do you say 'it is presumably the mass of the moon...'? Haven't you and your fellow astrologers worked out exactly what is happening? You're still just making assumptions, still just guessing?

    Like most Kiwis Ken we've watched a lot of TV coverage of the Canterbury quake. Strangely your name hasn't been mentioned once as the great seer that predicted the disaster. Not once Ken. I guess you're the only fool that believes in hindsight that they did imagine that they predicted the earthquake. But you still couldn't be bothered to go down and warn them could you?

86. Comment by Maori Einstein aka Lady Justice, 24 Sep, 2010

    This website is patethic website supporting Euro science thats leading us to world war 3!!
    Silly Beliefs needs to investigate further into the consequences science is having on our world.

    Id perfer the readings of nature and support Ken Ring.

    This message from Maori Einstein aka Lady Justice

87. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Sep, 2010

    You need to remember Maori Einstein that what you call 'Euro science' is what gave you electricity, computers and the internet and allows you to preach to us that we shouldn't be using or supporting it. In fact science and the resultant technology have given us greatly increased safety, security, freedom, health, knowledge and prosperity, and made this point in history the best ever. As we've noted elsewhere, the truth is that life expectancy for most of human history has been between 20 and 30 years, and finding food, shelter and personal safety — pure survival — was the only goal for most everyone. The claim that science has damaged our way of life is demonstrating complete ignorance of the way life used to be.

    If you wish to return to nature and live as our primitive and ignorant ancestors did, divining messages from the bright fires in the sky or from chicken entrails, then by all means support Ken Ring. But make sure you trash or give away your PC, TV, cellphone, heaters, car, clothes, medicines etc — all those evil things derived from science — so that people don't think you a hypocrite, decrying science while enjoying it's benefits.

    Also it's rather ironic that you see yourself as a genius, an Einstein even, one of the great contributors to modern science, and yet you denounce that very discipline.

    Furthermore, by 'Euro science' we assume you're talking about 'Western science' or 'Pakeha science'. As we've tried unsuccessfully to explain to Ken Ring, there is no such thing as 'Euro science' or even 'Maori science'. There is only science, it's the same whichever country you're in. There is no 'Euro gravity' and 'Kiwi gravity', just gravity.

    And perhaps you could explain why scientific knowledge is pushing us towards World War 3. We'd be interested in knowing how a microscope, telescope or particle accelerator can goad us in to a war, and against whom?

88. Comment by Tony, 25 Sep, 2010

    Maori Einstein aka Lady Justice — Take off all your clothes (yes ALL!) then walk (yes WALK!) to the nearest cave and live there for the rest of your life as a naked animal of nature. Don’t be tempted to make a skirt or anything from flax as your ancestors did because that would be a form of science that will put you on the slippery slope towards WW3!

    Alternatively, stop being so idealistically and immaturely stupid.

    Incidentally — Ken Ring has forecast that there will be snow in Christchurch on the 28/09/2010. “Euro science” predicts scattered clouds with a high of 20 degrees. Wonder who will be correct.

89. Comment by Ken Ring, 25 Sep, 2010

    The earthquake I predicted for 24 Sept for Christchurch on my website

    http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home

    occurred at 3.40am. In this online article for the past 10 days or so I have said it would occur at around 4.00am, so yes, I was out by 20 minutes.

    Get over it guys, I was correct.

    Today’s shake in Rolleston was the biggest one in the Christchurch region since the 8th of September, and out of over 800 shakes in the Christchurch region it was 22nd strongest.

    That’s not a coincidence. It shows that they CAN be predicted.

    Another has just occurred tonight in Tokoroa, a 5.6 mag, pretty big by anyone’s standards. It proves that they are clustering again, being of course the full moon. The whales have as usual stranded around an earthquake-rich time, because the earthquakes under the sea get them when they chase krill etc along the ocean floor in the undersea trenches. The shell shocked whales then float up and the tide brings them in.

    The next earthquake-risk time is Oct 1st-7th. Stay tuned.

90. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Sep, 2010

    What bullshit Ken. You state that there have been 800 earthquakes and yet you claim you've only predicted two of them. That means you've failed to predict 798 earthquakes. That's a pathetic success rate of less than 1%, or 0.25% to be exact. 800 earthquakes over 21 days, that's an average of around 38 earthquakes every day or three every two hours. With all these earthquakes you still only managed to predict two of them?!!

    And you actually didn't even predict those two either. We've already shown you didn't predict the big one, and you didn't predict the Rolleston one either. You didn't say 'it would occur at around 4.00am'. You actually said this vague statement: 'the next full moon may present as an earthquake potential time. Earthquakes cluster more around new moons and full moons... The 24th is full moon in apogee... The same potential will be present again anytime after 4am on the 24th. The focus of the node will be 12.48pm'. You only said there 'may' be an earthquake, and 'anytime after 4am', not at 4am, with the focus actually being at 12.48pm. Also, you said 'Earthquakes cluster more around new moons and full moons', and this gives you a possible window of two whole weeks (every month) when you could claim your prediction was correct. With an average of three earthquakes every two hours, we don't know why you didn't confidently say there WILL be an earthquake at 4am in Rolleston. Guessing alone might have seen you get it right. I'm sure we could speak to hundreds of Cantabrians who have made many more successful predictions than you have, and they would have just been guessing.

    Also you said, 'As to where, on 24th the moon has an east/west fault orientation, so for NZ only N Cant/Marl may be in the zone'. So again you were wrong. Living in Auckland you may not realise that Rolleston is south of Christchurch, so isn't in N Cant/Marl. So no, you didn't predict the Rolleston earthquake.

    You say your Rolleston prediction was 'not a coincidence', and we think you are probably correct. Mere chance alone would suggest that you would guess far more than just two earthquakes out of more than 800, so it would seem that evil astrological forces are deliberately withholding important signs from you. Have you not made the appropriate sacrifices lately? I guess virgins are becoming hard to come by, and who can get their hands on good quality myrrth these days.

    And what's this nonsense about 'shell shocked whales'? Your talents are wasted Ken, you should be writing children's stories, not silly weather predictions.

91. Comment by Tony, 25 Sep, 2010

    Ken Ring: “The next earthquake-risk time is Oct 1st - 7th. Stay tuned.”

    Incredibly vague “prediction” Ken. Please answer the following so we can at least accept that you have made an actual prediction . . .

    Are you saying there is no "earthquake-risk time" before Oct 1st - 7th (other than expected aftershocks)?

    Is this “earthquake-risk time from Oct 1st - 7th” for Christchurch/Canterbury, anywhere in New Zealand, or some distant country?

    Still predicting snow for Christchurch on the 28th Sept (this month) Ken?

92. Comment by Ken Ring, 25 Sep, 2010

    [Re Comment #90] You didn’t read my words carefully enough. The moon’s node is the trigger, the nearer the node the greater the trigger, provided other factors also in place. The node over Christchurch was 4am. This time other factors (largely unknown) were perhaps absent, so the energy may have been in a sense purer, and possibly why the earthquake arrived then. I’m only trying to suggest lines of research and pointing out factors that no one else seems willing to look into. No harm in that, although doubtless you’ll imagine some.

    And me predict 800 earthquakes? Who’s going to fund me for that?

    You?

93. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Sep, 2010

    Ken, you ask who is going to fund you to predict earthquakes? Why not the same people that funded you to predict the two that you claim credit for? If you didn't need funding for those two (or the assistance of geologists and astronomers), then why do you need it now? And think about it Ken, the Canterbury quake is going to cost the country billions. Do you not think the government and/or insurance companies might fund you if they thought you could actually predict earthquakes?

    Remember Ken, there's been over 800 earthquakes in Canterbury this month and you didn't manage to predict one of them. That's a pathetic track record. And you want people to give you money so you can carry on failing to predict earthquakes? There are only so many gullible idiots in NZ Ken, and many are already giving you money for useless weather predictions, where are these morons going to find money for bogus earthquake predictions as well?

    The fact is that no intelligent, rational individual or body is going to give an astrologer money to make vague guesses based on a superstitious belief that was debunked centuries ago.

94. Comment by Alison, 26 Sep, 2010

    "The whales have as usual stranded around an earthquake-rich time, because the earthquakes under the sea get them when they chase krill etc along the ocean floor in the undersea trenches. The shell shocked whales then float up and the tide brings them in."

    Um, no, very probably not. As the SB team says, what nonsense. Krill are a key food item for baleen whales, but not toothed whales. Yet baleen whales seem to strand relatively infrequently (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/whales/8/5). Sperm whales (which are toothed whales) do dive deeply — after squid, not krill — but there are no reports of mass sperm whale beachings round NZ in the recent past: something one might have expected if your ‘large earthquakes cause strandings’ idea had something in it. (Most sperm whale strandings are of solitary animals.) Why no mass strandings along the Canterbury coastline?
95. Comment by Ken Ring, 27 Sep, 2010

    Alison, I have never claimed to be an expert on whales.

    I don’t know what individual species prefer to chase and eat, or where they chase them, all that is largely immaterial. Many species gravitate towards the ocean floor, especially when the moon is in northern declination and downward currents are instigated, which is when many strandings seem to occur. There is all sorts of feed there. The orography of the coastline would have a lot to do with it due to ocean flow and tidal drift from fault-rich areas of the sea, which is why strandings seem to be more common in some places than others, and which is possibly why the Canterbury coastline does not have a stranding history to match Spirits Bay. That moon peak times, earthquakes and strandings coincide suggests some causality.

    There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion and one theory is as valid as another and not ‘nonsense’, and when I correctly predict earthquake potential times it adds credence to the moon being an influential factor. I said the full moon would probably bring them again, and since Saturday morning over a dozen sizeable aftershocks at the larger end of the scale have rocked the region. Of course as soon as I open my mouth SB jumps down it on principle like a raging pit-bull, even though other scientists in other parts of the world have confirmed what I say. Choosing to join this SB mad-dog mentality is unfortunate as it diminishes your other points.

96. Comment by Rob, 27 Sep, 2010

    Hi Guys. Excellent takedown of Ken Ring on your site. He did a talk at TEDx Auckland today [26th]. First time I've seen him speak and I'm unimpressed, I expected more charisma. He kept going off topic, cracked some jokes and did some magic tricks... I think they were aimed to impress? Made me sick how people pander to him. Sorry just wanted to get that off my chest.

    Keep up the fight.

    P.S. Oh and he went on about how he predicted the Christchurch earthquake "to the day" in a book he wrote 2 years ago. He said "to publish he has to write his book 2 years ahead of time, that that is a requirement."

    P.P.S. The talk will be online as all the TEDx talks get made accessible. I'll send you a link when I have it.

97. Comment by Sara, 27 Sep, 2010

    Hi, I don't know if Ken Ring can predict the weather, or earthquakes, but I think that if there are correlations between what the moon does and what the earth does, then why not track it and look for patterns? We don't know everything yet, that's for sure. Not even close. The moon does affect the sea, plants, many womens' monthly cycle runs in tune with it, so why not the earth and the weather? Seems feasible to me. The thing is, if he is often wrong, then people won't buy his book the next year. No problem. The 1-7 October prediction mentions N Canterbury and Marlborough, for the person that was asking. I personally, hope he is wrong for that one!

    I wanted to mention the 'high ground energy' because it's something that we had been talking about, me and my friends here in Chch. In the days after the earthquake, particularly the day of the biggest aftershock (I think that was the 6th?), things just felt 'odd'. Now, you might say it was just psychological trauma or whatever, and maybe that was part of it, but there was a definite edginess, just almost 'in the air'. The air was still and felt weird. I noted that my animals were behaving strangely too, not doing their usual thing in the usual place and also the birds weren't singing at the usual time. Then the next day, even though there were more aftershocks, it just felt different. Everyone was more relaxed, the animals were behaving normally and there was a bit of a breeze. It was noticeable. I don't think I'm nuts. There have been days since then where we have been very freaked out by the aftershocks, but that strange eerie feeling has not come back, it was just there after the first big shock.

    So.. let's see...

98. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Sep, 2010

    Hi Sara. You ask, 'if there are correlations between what the moon does and what the earth does, then why not track it and look for patterns?' This of course is a sensible question, but the thing is that scientists have been observing the moon for hundreds of years, that's why we know that it causes the tides in the oceans (and in the land), why it's slowly moving away from us, and why it always shows one face to us. For much of history people thought the objects in the heavens influenced life on earth, that is, they believed they saw a correlation between events and the movement of objects like the moon. This was called astrology, but we now know they were wrong. Yes people can now say that the moon's gravity causes the tides, but they can't then assume that it causes our personalities as well. There is evidence for the tides but not for our personalities. Likewise they can't say it causes our weather either, because experts have looked and failed to find any good evidence. And we state again, there is no evidence that women's menstrual cycles are tied to the moon, even though some will appear to be by pure chance alone. You say that many women are, but as even Ring keeps pointing out, the moon is not intelligent, it can't pick some and not others, it's everyone or no one.

    You said that 'The 1-7 October prediction mentions N Canterbury and Marlborough, for the person that was asking'. No it doesn't. This statement is by itself at the very end of his article: 'Next risk period: Oct 1st-7th'. There is no mention of where this relates to, although in the article when mentioning early October Ring says, 'so the shake this time could be anywhere between Te Anau and White Island'. So it could be a large part of the South Island at the very least, or most of NZ, depending on which White Island Ring is referring to. Another example of vague predictions.

    As for the 'high ground energy' feeling, Ring believes this is due to earthquakes, so it should have been present whenever there were quakes, and yet both you and he said it disappeared. It does just sound psychological to us, since as people got used to the aftershocks and their stress and fear subsided, so behaviour returned to normal.

    You also say, 'The thing is, if he is often wrong, then people won't buy his book the next year. No problem.' Oh, if only that were true. Astrology and those horoscope columns and books are always wrong, and yet people keep buying the books. The thing is, both horoscopes and Ring's predictions are so vague and banal that they often appear correct. Horoscopes will say around Xmas that you might be going on a trip or might receive a gift, and Ring will say there is a chance it might rain, meaning it might also be fine. No matter what happens, rain or fine, Ring's clients are foolish enough to think he got it right.

99. Comment by Alison, 26 Sep, 2010

    [Re Comment #95 — Ken Ring:]

    "I don’t know what individual species prefer to chase and eat, or where they chase them, all that is largely immaterial."

    No it’s not — you made the specific claim that whales dive deep into ocean trenches to feed on krill, & that’s when they are affected by undersea earthquakes. You’re wrong on this one, just as your next sentence — Many species gravitate towards the ocean floor, especially when the moon is in northern declination and downward currents are instigated — has no evidence to support it. There is not ‘all sorts of food’ there unless you like eating dead things & the bacteria & detritivores that feed on them. Which whales don’t.
100. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Sep, 2010

     Ken, in Comment #95 you talk knowingly about 'The orography of the coastline', and I admit I had to look up what orography meant, but maybe you should have too. It's 'the study of the physical geography of mountains and mountain ranges', nothing to do with coastlines, and hence nothing to do with the stranding of whales. Your argument is that whales are hit by earthquakes in 'undersea trenches' and that 'ocean flow and tidal drift from fault-rich areas of the sea' cause 'The shell shocked whales [to] float up and the tide brings them in'. What evidence do you have that stunned whales are simply washing up on our beaches like flotsam and jetsam? And if these earthquakes can stun these big, powerful mammals, why aren't other weaker sea creatures being affected? Why just whales on the beach, why isn't it a who's who of the sea world?

     'I said the full moon would probably bring them [earthquakes] again... [and] other scientists in other parts of the world have confirmed what I say'. Why do you keep lying to the world Ken? You are not a scientist, so stop implying that you are. And what reputable scientists have said that the moon is causing these earthquakes Ken? Please tell us.

     You also show your ignorance of science by claiming that 'There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion and one theory is as valid as another...'. Scientific knowledge is not a body of opinions Ken. By your comments you pretend to be working in a scientific manner, and yet you falsely use the term 'theory' as a layperson would, meaning a guess or a hunch. Is one opinion, one 'theory', really as valid as another Ken? Evolution or creationism, a round earth or a flat earth, a universe billions of years old or only a few thousand, presents are delivered by Santa or by parents, insanity is caused by mental illness or demons, lost keys just happen or are brought about by gremlins? If you think that these competing 'theories' are equally valid, equally likely to be correct — and your argument is that they are — then you further demonstrate that you have no understanding of science, reason and evidence. You are as we've always maintained, a dabbler in pseudoscience. You use scientific terms and scientific sounding phrases to fool your audience into thinking that what you do is scientific, when it is nothing other than primitive nonsense. An astrologer poring over mystical charts on his kitchen table, trying to convince a skeptical world that his visions of snow and earthquakes are real.

     And so it eventually came to pass, that an earthquake did strike the earth's surface, and some drizzle did fall, and lo, Ken Ring the Great Astrologer proclaimed, 'See, I told you there'd be an earthquake'. And the world did rejoice and worship the soothsayer, and his holy Weather Almanac was sold out for the first time.

101. Comment by Rob, 27 Sep, 2010

     It's funny he accuses climate scientists of "not accepting his ideas because his ideas challenge a world view that scientists have built their careers upon..." When in fact Ken Ring has build a career out of his own "beliefs". I stress "his, and his alone". I think his problem is described as "Simple minded certitude". Ken is unable to back down in face of the evidence against his ideas. He has painted himself into a corner. He would have nothing if he backed down. Unless he went back to doing magic tricks for school kids. Pretty sad.

     What annoys me is how people pander to him. People should be telling him his ideas are baseless... not crediting for being a visionary or a rebel.

     Your website is great, keep up the fight.

102. Comment by Jonny, 27 Sep, 2010

     Ring states, at comment 92, "Today’s shake in Rolleston [ 24-Sep 3:40:16AM, Magnitude = 4.59, see http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeMap/Single/?Index=35], was the biggest one in the Christchurch region since the 8th of September".

     However on the 12-Sep at 6:03:21AM there was a Magnitude = 4.64 Near Springston, New Zealand, see http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeMap/Single/?Index=306.

103. Comment by Ken Ring, 28 Sep, 2010

     It’s a pity you didn’t understand what I was saying Rob, because as you admit, you went to TEDx with a bias towards me. Seems you managed to retain that bias.

     Yes, I used props to illustrate points, and those points were that ideas should be challenged all the time, and that makes a healthy environment. But they must first be allowed into the marketplace, which means they should be embraced even by ardent sceptics, for no one has all the answers and no one is qualified to set themselves up as the arbiter of correct theories.

     Reform only comes from mavericks. The marketplace itself will decide which ideas go forward and which mavericks become mainstream eventually. The market place doesn’t need to be protected from itself by those who think they know better than to give it free reign. The marketplace doesn’t need a nagging busybody telling it to shun certain ideas.

     Yes, I use magic. But as you saw, I exposed what I did because I was out to show how we can be led astray by others telling us what to think, like those who run this blog. That you missed that point was a shame. My aim is getting farmers to try my ideas of incorporating cycles into their planning. In my talks I explain my methods. I want audiences to try them. They do, with good results. The only people who try to shut me down are those who have competing business interests. Although they will deny it I assure you this blog is registered by a corporation allied to weather service companies.

104. Comment by Ken Ring, 28 Sep, 2010

     You keep insulting people who buy my book. How arrogant.

     You call them foolish, when I obviously did get it right, there are many farmers who have made longterm decisions based on my recommendations, and in some cases it has saved their farms. Yet you would speak for them and tell them they were wasting their time. You will try to give the impression your metservice companies supply all that is needed, when many farmers tell me none of them and my almanac id the only tool they use.

     I have hundreds of emails to substantiate this. What on earth is wrong with you people? As Sara says, nobody has to buy my book. Yet they do. The same ones, every year. And every year the same farming groups have me back to address them with the following year’s report for their region. For goodness sake get over it. Grow out of the playground bully mindset.

     You rubbish Sara when she tells you something that I have already many emails confirming. Face it, people have experiences that are real to them. If someone describes a feeling, who on earth do you think you are to deny them that? The Feeling Police now? My god, it is incredible!!!

     YOU may not like me because you deal with weather service companies who find my work competes with their own, so you have a bias based on your own profit.

     Learn that this is a democracy and that we are all allowed a free voice. You don’t have to listen. I don’t expect everyone to embrace what I am saying, for various reasons. But I will never stand in the way of someone with a theory that is different to mine, nor would I try to wreck his business with taunts, with name-calling and with calls to boycott his products.

105. Comment by Tony, 28 Sep, 2010

     On his website’s “Prediction one week from today” section Ken Ring predicted “snow” for Christchurch today (28th). Not only is there no snow but there’s not even any sleet, hail, rain or clouds to speak of. The Met Office forecast for today is 19 degrees and partly cloudy toward evening (no Moon required).

     Given Ring claims to be so amazingly accurate with earthquake predictions how does he explain this amazingly wrong weather prediction? If any Canterbury farmers had paid him for this snow prediction, and had gone to some trouble and expense of moving stock to protect against it, would he have given them a refund?

     Ring claims — “The next earthquake-risk time is Oct 1-7” but he won’t specify if that “risk” is for Christchurch, Canterbury, the South Island or even New Zealand. Seems he can only be specific with retrofitted earthquake predictions. Perhaps he should only use this “can’t fail” method for weather predictions as well.

106. Comment by Ken Ring, 29 Sep, 2010

     Re 102

     Yes there is evidence, maybe you haven’t seen it.

     There is plenty of food near the ocean floor. You should just ask a fisherman. Ever heard of bottom feeders? Ever heard of a snapper? That’s one for a start. Ever heard of flounder? Crabs? Crayfish? Guess not. In your world crabs wander around in mid-ocean, without fins or tails. I wonder why fish don’t look like crabs then?

     Re 103

     Other fish that would get knocked out by shocks would presumably be eaten very quickly by larger predators. I can’t see a cod swallowing a whale, but I suppose even in that you would again find a way of disagreeing with me. But maybe whales with their advanced sonar facilities get disoriented because earthquakes scramble their sonar, maybe they get lost, go to the safety of the surface so they can breathe and the tide washes them in. I am not a whale expert nor an earthquake expert and have never claimed to be.

     For moon and earthquakes, Google Moon and earthquakes, thousands of studies, e.g. look for one by Moscow researchers.

     Orography means the shape of the land, vs topography which refers to map-making.

     Re 104

     Yes, it’s strange isn’t it. Perhaps the world is waiting for you Rob to tell them about your bias. I can’t wait to see/hear you on TVNZ and national radio. I was on both this morning when I was approached for my comments on the current situation. But I didn’t hear you being asked for comment. Can you shed light on this?

     Re 105, 3

     The computer generates the word “snow” when it combines precipitation with subzero minimum. It can equally be frost, ice, cold rain, hail, or snow flurries. I have to sum all that in one word somehow. The minimum temperature for Christchurch was 1C yesterday, same as today. That is what I also had predicted from my database, and what the computer utilised. 1C can be cold enough for ice formation, depending on location. I actually have it set to click in at 2C and below.

     Yes, the earthquake risk is for the Christchurch region, that is what the whole article is about.

107. Comment by Dave, 29 Sep, 2010

     Ken, I neither believe or disbelieve what you write and predict but I would like to make my mind up. Hence I refer to the following paragraph on your site regarding the prediction of an earthquake.

     "Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons. This date is the closest fly-past the moon does in all of 2011. The node arrives on the 20th at 9.44am. As that date coincides with lunar equinox this will probably be an east/west faultline event this time, and therefore should be more confined to a narrower band of latitude. The only east/west fault lines in NZ are in Marlborough and N Canterbury. All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books."

     Could you answer the following please

     1. Quote "Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons." (The same reasons being the moon etc as you explain in your article)

     Q.1.1 Ken — risk or certainty? If it's not a certainty — why not? If it doesn't happen — why would that be?

     2. Quote "The node arrives on the 20th at 9.44am. As that date coincides with lunar equinox this will probably be an east/west faultline event this time, and therefore should be more confined to a narrower band of latitude. The only east/west fault lines in NZ are in Marlborough and N Canterbury."

     Q. 2.1 Why probably an east west failure as opposed to a North South failure or South North failure?

     Q. 2.2 You say probably — what is the probability factor — 50%, 25%, 90% or what?

     Q. 2.3 How do you know that the only east / west fault lines are in Marlborough and N Canterbury and why do you say that when the recent quake in Canterbury was on an unknown east west fault line that had been dormant for 16000 years. Hence there may well be others "undiscovered". You see also looking at a map of known fault lines in New Zealand I can see several more east to west lines in Southland, North Otago, McKenzie Country — some in the Waiarapa, some in Poverty Bay, Central North Island, etc.

     Q. 2.4 Having established that there are more east west fault lines outside of the Marlborough and N Canterbury areas, and based on your knowledge of nodes, latitudes, longitudes, perigees, lunar equinox , moon positioning, moon shots, sun spots, which region that has east west fault lines would be more vulnerable on the 20 March — Marlborough, North Canterbury, McKenzie Country, Southland, Poverty Bay, Wairapa, or Central North Island and why?

     Q. 2.5 Which of the above areas is in the narrower band of latitude you refer to and what is the longitude?

     3. Quote "All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books."

     Q. 3.1 On what basis do you say it could be another for the history books? What makes you think it could be a history book event? There must be some reason why you write that.

     Q. 3.2 There are four types of crustal block movements that can occur along faults in an earthquake — normal, reverse, sinistral strike slip and dextral strike slip. From a moonshot straight through the centre of the earth targeting New Zealand perspective — which type of fault do you think would be more vulnerable taking into account all the factors you have published on your site re the prediction of the 20 March 2011 event?

     Q 3.3 Please provide a definition of what a "moon shot" is.

108. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 30 Sep, 2010

     Ken, you say you have hundreds of worshipping emails and that farming groups year after year ask you back to lie to them, sorry, I mean talk to them. So what? You confuse blind belief with evidence. Santa Claus gets far more emails from believers than you do, and they flock to his public appearances, so does that mean belief in Santa is justified too? As Anatole France said "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

     And we did not "rubbish" Sara, only your beliefs. And do you truly think we are denying people's feelings? Don't be so stupid. What we are suspicious of is the interpretation people give their feelings. If someone says 'I feel I'm possessed by demons' or 'I feel I can sense people's chakras' or 'I feel that I've lived before' or 'I feel I can predict earthquakes', we challenge these feelings and ask for evidence. Contrary to you, we aren't swayed by feelings.

     Again you say 'I am not a whale expert', but again you contradict yourself by then telling us how whales are affected by earthquakes. You say that 'Other fish that would get knocked out by shocks would presumably be eaten very quickly by larger predators'. But the larger predators — the whales etc — are also 'knocked out' remember, floating on the surface, so not eating. You then say 'But maybe whales with their advanced sonar facilities get disoriented because earthquakes scramble their sonar, maybe they get lost, go to the safety of the surface so they can breathe and the tide washes them in'. Not all whales have 'advanced sonar facilities', but for those that do, in what way would a short earthquake 'scramble their sonar' Ken? And why would a powerful whale be overcome by the force of the tide, when again, everything smaller isn't affected? Your ignorance is just generating bullshit Ken.

     You also argue that 'Orography means the shape of the land'. Who wrote your dictionary, another tenth century astrologer? Just put 'Orography definition' into Google Ken and read the first few hits.

     And once again you resort to lies: 'YOU may not like me because you deal with weather service companies who find my work competes with their own, so you have a bias based on your own profit'. Still too gutless to go to a lawyer or the media with your accusations aren't you Ken? And our website is free Ken, it is only you that has a profit to worry about.

     You insist that 'I will never stand in the way of someone with a theory that is different to mine'. Then be a man of your word Ken and let us get on with promulgating a 'theory' that is different to yours. To parrot your sentiments, 'this is a democracy and... we are all allowed a free voice. You don't have to listen. I don't expect everyone to embrace what I am saying'. Or are these only empty words on your part Ken?

109. Comment by Ken Ring, 01 Oct, 2010

     Dave

     1. Quote "Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons." (The same reasons being the moon etc as you explain in your article)

     Q.1.1 Ken — risk or certainty? If it's not a certainty — why not? If it doesn't happen — why would that be?

     All forecasting is about potential, based on known factors. In nature there are plenty of unknowns, that we haven’t discovered yet. We are not gods. That is why causality is just down to opinions and cannot ever be proven. The climate change argument is a case in point. Even if global warming was true, it is impossible to say humans would be the cause. I would never put certainty and a natural event in the same sentence, except as a verbal expression in the context of opinion.

     2. Quote "The node arrives on the 20th at 9.44am. As that date coincides with lunar equinox this will probably be an east/west faultline event this time, and therefore should be more confined to a narrower band of latitude. The only east/west fault lines in NZ are in Marlborough and N Canterbury."

     Q. 2.1 Why probably an east west failure as opposed to a North South failure or South North failure?

     Because moon at lunar equinox appears to activate east/west faults and moon at stitial colure to activate north/south faults. There is a force perpendicular to the radius vector such as to retard the moon while she goes from syzygy to quadrature and to accelerate her while she goes from quadrature to syzygy. Syzygy is akin to stitial colure, and quadrature to lunar equinox. It means at lunar equinox there is potential for greater horizontal influence.

     Q. 2.2 You say probably — what is the probability factor — 50%, 25%, 90% or what?

     That is a nonsense question and a waste of my time. If I was to say I probably won’t be able to attend a meeting due to other commitments, it would be absurd to ask for that probability to be quantified. I could say 90% and someone could ask why not 89.99%

     Q. 2.3 How do you know that the only east / west fault lines are in Marlborough and N Canterbury

     Go to the Geonet website and see it for yourself. That’s who I am quoting.

     and why do you say that when the recent quake in Canterbury was on an unknown east west fault line that had been dormant for 16000 years.

     Again, as reported by Geonet. Take it up with them, not me.

     Hence there may well be others "undiscovered".

     Agree!

     You see also looking at a map of known fault lines in New Zealand I can see several more east to west lines in Southland, North Otago, McKenzie Country — some in the Waiarapa, some in Poverty Bay, Central North Island, etc.

     I haven’t seen that map, I am only going from what Geonet have stated.

     Q. 2.4 Having established that there are more east west fault lines outside of the Marlborough and N Canterbury areas, and based on your knowledge of nodes, latitudes, longitudes, perigees, lunar equinox , moon positioning, moon shots, sun spots, which region that has east west fault lines would be more vulnerable on the 20 March — Marlborough, North Canterbury, McKenzie Country, Southland, Poverty Bay, Wairapa, or Central North Island and why?

     If there are other E/W fault lines then a potential would exist for them to be at risk. An astrological fix would need to be done for each.

     Q. 2.5 Which of the above areas is in the narrower band of latitude you refer to and what is the longitude?

     Again, this would need to be calculated.

     3. Quote "All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books."

     Q. 3.1 On what basis do you say it could be another for the history books? What makes you think it could be a history book event? There must be some reason why you write that.

     I think it may be a significant event.

     Q. 3.2 There are four types of crustal block movements that can occur along faults in an earthquake — normal, reverse, sinistral strike slip and dextral strike slip. From a moonshot straight through the centre of the earth targeting New Zealand perspective — which type of fault do you think would be more vulnerable taking into account all the factors you have published on your site re the prediction of the 20 March 2011 event?

     I have never claimed to be either a geologist or a seismologist. I am only pointing to the timing and suggesting lines of enquiry for those receiving research funding now. There is no way I can devote the time and energy required.

     Q 3.3 Please provide a definition of what a "moon shot" is.

     In this context, an earthquake strike.

110. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Oct, 2010

     Ken, re your Comments #103, you tried to make clear your view that 'ideas should be challenged all the time'. Well, that's what Rob was doing, and what we're doing Ken, so you should be happy, things are working as you want them to. You insist that '[ideas] must first be allowed into the marketplace'. Your ideas are in the marketplace Ken, or have you forgotten your books, website and media promotions? So again, things are actually working as you think they should.

     But you then insist that '[ideas] should be embraced even by ardent sceptics'. That's rubbish. Skeptics can not be expected to blindly embrace new ideas, that would be contrary to what being a skeptic actually means. Imagine some moron saying that the world is flat, and a skeptic immediately replying, Yes I'll embrace that idea. It's gullible people that immediately embrace new, unproven ideas, not skeptics. It sounds as though you're just inventing definitions again Ken.

     You then proclaim that 'The marketplace itself will decide which ideas go forward'. Bullshit. The marketplace doesn't decide on matters of knowledge and science Ken, only on the likes of ice cream flavours and women's fashion. The marketplace doesn't get to vote on whether quarks exist or the moon is made of green cheese, and only people like yourself actually think this is how scientific knowledge is arrived at — put an idea out into the marketplace and see if the man on the street buys it. There will always be people buying horoscopes, Bibles, healing crystals and your weather almanacs, but don't fool yourself that these deluded souls get to decide which ideas best explain the universe.

     Obviously aimed at us, you then declare that 'The market place doesn't need to be protected from itself by those who think they know better than to give it free reign'. It's amazing, and a little humbling, how much power and influence you think we have over your position in the marketplace Ken. And a little strange that you still choose to abuse and insult us, since we seemingly have it in our power to affect your destiny.

     You finished by expressing a sentiment close to our hearts as well: 'I exposed what I did because I was out to show how we can be led astray by others telling us what to think'. And that's our motivation as well Ken, only it's you we are exposing for leading people astray by telling them what to think about the moon, astrology and the weather.

111. Comment by Dave, 02 Oct, 2010

     Thanks Ken. Check the GS Science web map re active fault lines and you'll see other east west ones dotted around. It's a different site than GEONET. I'd love to know why you "think" the earthquake you predict for the 20th March at midday will be a significant event — so do many others. Alas we may never know. Unless you back up why you "think" this predicted event could be significant people would be entitled to be left with the view that such a prediction is alarmist with little basis. You have written, it could be another one for the history books and in response to my question your answer has merely been saying a similar thing in different words — tell the public why you think that the predicted earthquake at midday on the 20th March as a result of the moonshot (earthquake) will be a significant event. It is not an unreasonable question to ask of a writer who has published such a prediction. Opinion is when you state something based on the beliefs that you hold or the knowledge you have or the expertise and qualifications you have to give an opinion. You have given an opinion that you think it will be a significant event — but not why. You didn't back up your opinion. Rather than blindly state that you think it will be a significant event — tell us why.

112. Comment by Anonymous-4, 02 Oct, 2010

     I stumbled across Ken Ring’s site when a friend posted his Canterbury earthquake article on Facebook. I’d heard of this guy before but only in second-hand info. I did work for a music promoter who based his timing of the event on the Almanac (which proved to be a failure, the event I was involved with was exceptionally cold, grey and drizzly). I noticed one of his free forecasts “one week from today” (I’m not paying 11 dollars for a stab in the dark, thanks!)... I got a bit excited when I read snow was forecast for the 28th. Well, not only did we not get snow, we didn’t get sleet, hail, rain or even drizzle. Just some moderate cloud later on that toasty day!

     I notice he’s totally avoided Tony’s comment regarding this Sept 28th failure. I’ve marked next Wednesday 6th Oct as another snowy candidate so will be looking out for that. Considering the lengthy coverage of these predictive failures I just read on this site, I don’t have much confidence.

     I’ve overheard people talking about “that weather prediction guy” at work and have been setting people straight on this business and will continue to do so until his theories bare some fruit worth paying attention to.

113. Comment by Ken Ring, 02 Oct, 2010

     I am not telling anyone what to think. They can take or leave my theories, buy or not buy my books and forecasts.

     I have no interest in directing people’s choices.

     You do.

     You are telling people what to think about my ideas.

     Are you really not able to see that?

114. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Oct, 2010

     Ken, we've already debunked your accusation that we're telling people what to think (and yet you're not!?). You have a very short memory and just keep trotting out the same silly insults. You say that you 'have no interest in directing people's choices'. And yet you write books, articles, travel the world and beg to promote your views in the media. Why do you do this if not to direct people to your view of how the world works? People have a choice of believing modern meteorology or your astrology predictions, and also your anti-climate change views or mainstream views. You are constantly and actively trying to direct their choice towards your views, so don't bleat on that you're not doing this. To use your oft-repeated phrase: 'Are you really not able to see that?'

     Just as you continue to speak out against climate change proponents because you believe they are mistaken, ignorant and corrupt, we will continue to make known our views regarding your ideas, as long as we think they are complete nonsense. And you've done nothing to convince us that they aren't complete nonsense. Your predictions keep failing on a grand scale, you refuse to provide evidence, and instead regale us with urban myths, lies, superstitions gleaned from centuries old astrology texts, and worthless testimonials from illiterate farmers and New Age nutters.

     If we've reduced you to tears over our disbelieving stance then buy another box of tissues.

     Now re comment #109, what's this nonsense: 'All forecasting is about potential... That is why causality is just down to opinions and cannot ever be proven'? You appear to confuse causality with prediction. Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. What causes the ocean tides Ken? What causes an eclipse? What causes an apple to fall? What causes rain, snow and wind? We thought you reckoned you knew what caused all these things — Newton's 'astrological' gravity? Now you're insisting that gravity and its effects is just an opinion, and it can never be proven to be the cause? So it could be gremlins or gods after all, is that what you're saying? If you re-entered the 21st century Ken you'd discover that we do know the causes of much of what happens in nature, including the weather. Contrary to your opinions, angry gods do not throw lightning, and drizzle is not the sneeze of a god with the flu. Yet again your ignorance has merely produced another pseudoscientific statement that only fools those like yourself mired in primitive nonsense.

     And taking this stance you're even admitting that your take on climate change is just an opinion and that you have no proof. Finally something we agree on!

115. Comment by Ken Ring, 02 Oct, 2010

     Dave:

     "tell the public why you think that the predicted earthquake at midday on the 20th March as a result of the moonshot (earthquake) will be a significant event. It is not an unreasonable question to ask of a writer who has published such a prediction. You have given an opinion that you think it will be a significant event — but not why. You didn't back up your opinion. Rather than blindly state that you think it will be a significant event — tell us why."

     I have done so extensively in this article, first posted on 7 September.

     http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home

     Anonymous-4:

     "snow was forecast for the 28th"

     I’ve explained that my computer interprets 1C minimum as frost/ or potential for snow, provided other factors. Minimums did register 1C in Christchurch that day, so a successful forecast (from two years away)

     SB:

     "you have no proof"

     You keep calling for proof of my theories, without which you claim they must be invalid. You must know that in science there is no proof. Only a religion claims irrefutability.

     "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

     Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

     "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

     Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

     "A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

     Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

     "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

     Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

     In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.

     All evidence is selective. Those who purchase my products have found enough to satisfy them that the moon method of longrange forecasting works for them and saves them money. The critics find evidence that doesn’t work. It is selective because in the same breath the latter do not similarly attack other weather services for inaccuracy.

116. Comment by Tony, 03 Oct, 2010

     Ken Ring — “The 1-7 October was warned of a month ago as an earthquake-risk period. On 1 October Christchurch district received 17 shakes.” — I can’t find any record of “17 shakes” for the whole of New Zealand on the 1st let alone the Christchurch district. I also can’t see that the 1st was substantially any more earthquake active than any other day during this aftershock period.

     Here is what Ring actually said (bolding mine) — “There may be earthquakes at these times, there is potential. We don't know how far down they'll be if they do arrive, that's two ifs down the track. We can't tell where will be the most at risk” — Ring obviously doesn’t know the difference between guessing and predicting. He does know however how to turn guessing in to retrofitted predictions using exaggerations and lies.

     Earthquakes are more common in New Zealand than most people realise. Before the “Christchurch” quake (actually Darfield) there were 33 quakes in August (largest 4.5) http://lists.geonet.org.nz/pipermail/eqnews/2010-August/thread.html and in July there were 36 quakes (largest 5.3) http://lists.geonet.org.nz/pipermail/eqnews/2010-July/thread.html. Seems around 30-40 quakes a month are quite normal for NZ.

     Ring is blatantly scaremongering to take advantage of peoples fear induced vulnerabilities following a natural disaster. He’s no better than the lying, cheating Sensing Murder scumbags.

117. Comment by Anonymous-5, 03 Oct, 2010

     Hi, No Ken, the minimum for Christchurch was not 1 degree as you state, it was 11. Check metservice. The next day was minimum of 7, not 1 degree as you stated also. You have this week very wrong in your almanac, it's going to be a lovely sunny week, not low pressure like you have been saying.

118. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Oct, 2010

     You're being picky Ken. One minute you don't know what 'theory' means in a scientific sense, and continue to refer to it in a layman's sense, now you suddenly revert to a strict scientific definition of the word 'proof'. We both know that by 'proof' I am referring to convincing evidence and reasons that would suggest that your astrological method of weather and earthquake prediction has a high probability of being correct. We have never asked you to prove your claims in the strict sense that you are now implying, since you are quite right, it is impossible.

     Let us also quote from the website that you quoted from — 'Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method':

     "Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas."

     You Ken have not provided that 'overwhelming evidence', or anywhere near it.

     Also,

     "In scientific practice, a superior and well-supported hypothesis will be regarded as a theory. A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact. An example is the... notion of a heliocentric solar system. At one time it was a mere hypothesis. Although it is still formally just a well-supported theory, validated by many independent lines of evidence, it is now widely regarded as scientific "fact"... As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

     Again Ken, your hypothesis is neither 'superior' nor 'well-supported', and so is not a theory in the scientific sense that you now wish to deal in. It has not 'withstood the test of time' and it has not been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

     And why didn't you quote this statement while you were at it:

     "Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism... Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science."

     So even the article you quoted from states that astrologers are not practicing science.

     And we see you are up to your old plagiarism tricks again Ken, passing off the second last paragraph that began: 'In truth, science can never establish...', as your own words, when it fact it was stolen from that article as well. And you want people to trust you.

     As for insisting that your snow forecast for Christchurch on the 28th was successful when in fact it was a nice day with no precipitation, this just demonstrates how wrong your forecasts are and how devious you are in trying to hide your innumerable errors. If your forecasts can't differentiate between 'frost, ice, cold rain, hail, or snow flurries' and a nice, warm, dry day, then they are absolutely worthless, and a scam of the highest order since you are charging people for these worthless forecasts.

119. Comment by Ken Ring, 03 Oct, 2010

     And we see you are up to your old plagiarism tricks again Ken, passing off the second last paragraph that began: 'In truth, science can never establish...', as your own words, when it fact it was stolen from that article as well

     No, it wasn’t my own words, the whole posting was of quotes of others. The second paragraph follows the first. Nice try.

     As for insisting that your snow forecast for Christchurch on the 28th was successful when in fact it was a nice day with no precipitation, this just demonstrates how wrong your forecasts are and how devious you are in trying to hide your innumerable errors

     But there was a low of 1C. See attached and scroll down to 24-Hour Observations to 9am. And there was forecast for precipitation within 24-hrs, see under Tomorrow 29 Sept. So my forecast was directly in line with Metservice.com. What on earth is wrong with you people?

120. Comment by Ken Ring, 04 Oct, 2010

     Tony

     It was 17 on 1 October, then rose to 19 in a later report. Another 19 on 2 October, and 11 so far on 3 October.

     They can be counted here. Ref: http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeList/

     You can see the renewed clustering here

     http://quake.crowe.co.nz/QuakeBreakdown/default.aspx

121. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Oct, 2010

     Ken, your 'whole posting' was NOT 'quotes of others'. We believe the first paragraph to us was penned by you, and was not the last paragraph also your original work? We only suspected the second last paragraph was not yours because it appeared too erudite. The quotes from Popper, Feynman, Russell and Einstein were clearly marked as quotes, but that second last paragraph was not. Readers had no way of knowing that this was not your work. We have already had this out with you previously, and you agreed to clearly show whose work you were copying, but it seems you have regressed.

     Regarding the weather for the 28th Sep, you predicted snow Ken. We don't care what the min temp was, it was a fine day with no snow, or even any rain. We also don't care if your 'forecast was directly in line with Metservice.com' or with your local witch, it was obviously WRONG! You ask 'What on earth is wrong with you people?' Well Ken, when you say snow, we expect snow. Is it too much to ask for your predictions to match the actual weather? Surely that's the purpose of forecasts? Our annoyance revolves around the fact that your forecasts are bullshit. And you seem surprised at our unwillingness to put up with your bogus weather guesses and your fanciful explanations as to how they might be forced to match reality, if only they were viewed from a great distance while hidden under a blanket of nonsensical excuses.

122. Comment by Hugh, 05 Oct, 2010

     The moon affects a motherload of water a little bit and causes tides because it is really fluid — affecting the bonds and crystaline structures of rock takes far more than the piddly gravity of the... moon. Try parting water with your hand... easy — Try parting a rock with your hand ...ouch. There are land tides but only a few cms and they are gradual bulges over many hundreds of kms not fracturing targeted influences.

123. Comment by Dave, 06 Oct, 2010

     [Some questions for Ken Ring]

     Scientists know where "most" earthquakes are likely to occur but not when, but in some predictions you have made you have given date, times and regional locations (Canterbury 1 to 7 October being an example) being both where and when. It has been claimed that you predicted the main earthquake in Canterbury in September.

     Thus, have you forwarded your methods of predicting earthquakes to the United States National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, (NEPEC) or the International Association Of Seismology and Physics of Earths Interior. These two organisations evaluate earthquake prediction methods. They are not disbelievers of Earthquake prediction other wise they wouldn't exist to evaluate. They merely test and confirm the method or otherwise. Imagine how many lives could be saved if there was accurate earthquake prediction. Equally imagine how much anxiety and stress can be caused by inaccurate long term predictions. Hence these organisations serve a very valid purpose in my view.

     There are three key steps to testing proposals / prediction methods. (They also measure predictive capability to validate models as opposed to random chance theory)

     1. The specifics of the method of prediction are documented so that others can reproduce the predictions using the same data input. Of course the uncertainties must also be documented.

     2. Earthquake predictors also need to set up a formal system in which predictions are made in real time not after the event.

     3. Finally after a period of time an evaluation will be made of the number of successes, failures, false alarms that the method has produced as opposed to random coincidence.

     Your prediction of an earthquake risk on the 20th March is in your own words this:

     "Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons. This date is the closest fly-past the moon does in all of 2011. The node arrives on the 20th at 9.44am. As that date coincides with lunar equinox this will probably be an east/west faultline event this time, and therefore should be more confined to a narrower band of latitude. The only east/west fault lines in NZ are in Marlborough and N Canterbury. All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books."

     Intelligent people I know have interpreted your statement as this (the italics are mine):

     20th March 2011 (date) just before noon (time) as the South Island is in big earthquake risk there will be a moon shot (earthquake in your words) targeting New Zealand which will probably be an east west fault line failure of which the only ones in New Zealand are in Marlborough and North Canterbury (Location) and it could be another for the history books (magnitude). Now whilst you say you can't state probability you have told me "that it could be another one for the history book" means you think it "will be a significant event." I infer a bit of a probability factor there Ken.

     But I do believe the long term earthquake risk forecast of the 20th March may be the type of prediction that would be of interest to the two agencies I have mentioned and given that this is predicted in March there is a lot of time available for you to not only forward this prediction and the basis on which it is made but also to apply the same methodology and predict further ones in New Zealand — say 12 months ahead from now so that the agencies have sufficient sampling to evaluate the methodology, and success rates.

     If you do this, the one thing I would suggest is that you don't use the recent Canterbury Earthquake to illustrate prediction. Doing so could muddy the waters a tad. A clean sheet would be ideal as there will be no after shock influence and 20th March is an ideal starting point as it seems it will be a new quake if the prediction is correct.

     The reason I say that is that the scientists told us very early in the piece that we could expect aftershocks which would continue for weeks and even months in Canterbury as the earth settles after the main shock. Aftershocks are merely a natural follow on from main shocks. We have had well over a thousand quakes since September 4th and they will be on going for some time. It's a gimme that there be more and there is a site that graphs the numbers of quakes by time of day and has all sorts of data that can be interpreted. If the moon effect played a part in the main shock then the aftershocks are merely a natural consequence of the initial event — and anyone could quite safely say that further quakes (aftershocks) will follow. If the moons effect did not play a part in the main shock then the aftershocks would still be a natural consequence of the main event. Predicting aftershocks is of no value because they will happen anyway. Predicting the main shock — that's what counts. The focus of evaluation has to be the 20th March and beyond.

     Ken I have read many research papers re the moon and earthquakes and the most favourable conclusion I have found re moons effect on causing earthquakes is this:

     "Of the many proposed pseudoscientific earthquake forecasting methods perhaps only those referencing earth tides, have any plausible mechanism behind them. Even then the explanations are questionable. A recent study on earth tides as a trigger for earthquakes shows a very small statistical effect for small earthquakes along the San Andreas fault in Central California. The researchers had to use thousands of events to make the effects even barely visible. This accords with calculations of the size of the stress caused by the tides which is very small compared to stress released by the earthquakes themselves. So the tides may conceivably trigger an event that was "almost" ready to go anyway and would have occurred shortly even if there was no tidal effect. It should also be noted that tidal stresses vary throughout the day and sometimes are likely to inhibit earthquakes rather than trigger them."

124. Comment by Ken Ring, 07 Oct, 2010

     Dave

     Thanks for your post. I repeat I am not an earthquake expert nor seismologist. I have no interest in being recognised as one, so see no reason to devote a considerable amount of time and resources to prepare and solidify a case to the UN or any other body, with no guarantee of a fair hearing, judging from mainstream science’s longheld bias against anything lunar, stemming from Christianity’s paganising and satanising the older sciences. Who would fund me for such an exercise? How would I live and pay bills during the preparation of it?

     I have issued pointers for salaried geologists to follow if they so choose. I have no doubt one day someone will win the Nobel Prize for “discovering” that the moon creates weather and earthquakes, and that this can be predicted in advance. These international prizes are political stunts anyway, or Obama, Al Gore, Yasser Arafat and others who have not advanced the world one iota wouldn’t have received them.

     My understanding of the land tide is that it is significant and 8-50cms per day, see Australian Aviation Manual. The molten-core tide is documented and is a separate study. The atmospheric tide literature needs updating — there was a lot printed around 1939 when BBC engineers found it affected shortwave broadcasts.

     Just because science has less inclination to publish this sort of research currently, doesn’t invalidate it. At the back of my book Predicting Weather By The Moon I list 30 university research papers and numerous books, all on lunar weather and lunar tide studies. The work has been done but is gathering dust on shelves in back rooms.

     I have pointed out before that the mathematics of the moon’s gravitation is poorly understood and wrong in many cases. The moon pulls along more than it pulls up, which is why most earthquakes occur when the moon is on the horizon. However, apples don’t fall along, which is what Newton tried to explain. He differentiated between gravitation and force corridors of planets. I think it is a mistake to apply the maths of one discipline to try to determine the dynamics and the mechanics of another, when different variables and a whole host of new unknowns are present.

     Besides which, science isn’t science anymore, now that they have abandoned the null hypothesis and look instead for consensus. It has relegated science to the status of religion. Therefore what is considered scientific today is merely peer-review of mates helping mates, what is studied is a function of who supplies funding and why, and what is published is just what gives market political leverage. It would be great if it was otherwise, but time to me is precious and I am not going to take the issue of science ethics on. It is very much corrupted in this country. One day science will again be in a mood to be open-minded enough to consider alternative theories. If I am still around then I will be delighted. Meanwhile I do what I can in the hope that at least some of it is helpful to the livelhoods of those who choose to embrace it.

     In life all coats don’t fit everybody, and some choose different attire. But no one person can self-decide what others should wear.

125. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 Oct, 2010

     Ken, some comments on your reply to Dave. Again you go on about 'mainstream science's longheld bias against anything lunar'. What nonsense. Do you think Newton was just some crank that dabbled in astrology in his kitchen like you do? Newton was mainstream science, and all the modern facts (not the bogus stuff) you quote about the moon and tides and gravity were determined by mainstream science. And what about the moon landing Ken? Was that all a hoax due to 'science's longheld bias against anything lunar'?

     You say, 'I repeat I am not an earthquake expert nor seismologist. I have no interest in being recognised as one'. Then shut up Ken and stop claiming that you can predict them. Especially when further on you state that 'I have pointed out before that the mathematics of the moon's gravitation is poorly understood and wrong in many cases'. So once again you insist you know more about gravitation than does modern science, and that Newton's view of gravity is still superior to Einstein's. Sounds like you do think you're an expert. It's amazing what they must have taught you at clown college.

     You continue with, 'Besides which, science isn't science anymore,... It has [been] relegated... to the status of religion... merely peer-review of mates helping mates... It is very much corrupted'. That's right Ken, astrologers like yourself are the only people doing real science these days and we have you to thank for our modern, advanced society. Next you'll be insisting that astrologers invented the internet, cell phones, antibiotics, MRI scanners, and the lunar rovers. Oh I forgot, that was a hoax wasn't it? Why would scientists want to go to the moon when they had a religion to invent and choir boys to molest?

     You dream that one day science will consider astrology as a valid theory and hope that you'll still be alive when it happens. Hell will freeze over before that happens Ken, and since Hell is as much a fantasy as astrology, this means never. Prepare yourself for a major disappointment Ken.

126. Comment by vIQleS, 13 Oct, 2010

     I'm pretty much done with trying to educate KR. He doesn't seem to be coming up with anything new to debunk and anyone searching for Ken Ring should now be able to make an educated decision about his claims.

     I do, however, have to take exception to the following:

     Rob, 27 Sep, 2010:

     "Unless he went back to doing magic tricks for school kids. Pretty sad."

     Doing magic tricks for school kids is a noble and time-honoured profession.

     Also, many of my close personal friends are clowns and many of them are very intelligent (some are even skeptical and rational).

127. Comment by Nick, 14 Oct, 2010

     I've noticed that despite Ken stating "I repeat I am not an earthquake expert nor seismologist. I have no interest in being recognised as one", the predictions still appear on his site.

     I've been following them and upon looking back on early October I have to say they're no better than what I would expect by somebody just taking a stab in the dark. Just about anybody living here could safely claim there'll be an aftershock somewhere between XX.XXam and XX.XXpm on any given day. Of particular note is the prediction that the 8th of Oct would be a "quiet day" — in reality we had six aftershocks. The rest is neither here nor there and not of much use, but like watching psychics — it's been entertaining nonetheless.

128. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Oct, 2010

     You're right Nick, observing Ken and his silly proclamations is just like watching psychics, and while we learn nothing new, it is entertaining.

129. Comment by Dave, 15 Oct, 2010

     Ken, thank you for your response to #126. I would be interested in your response to the following re your 20th March Earthquake statement that I have been questioning you about.

     1. The Radio Live site states Ken Ring predicted the Christchurch earthquake.
     2. The Weatherwatch NZ web site has published an interview with you. A question put to you was how is it that you can predict earthquakes too? You are quoted as saying "Predicting earthquakes requires a lot of calculation, which I did a few years ago one month ahead for three earthquake events in this country". If the article is correct — you agreed you predicted earthquakes. In fact you talked about your TV interviews in respect of this.
     3. On the 20th September in a response to a posting on this site regarding you predicting the Canterbury earthquake you responded "But I did predict the earthquake, and was on the radio the day before with the prediction for a big earthquake in the South Island. Read my article on it". It is stated by you, that you predicted an earthquake.
     4. On your 30th September update on your site you discuss an aftershock that occurred in Christchurch that day and later say "Our prediction was for a step-up in seismic activity from 1 October onwards, until the 7th."
     5. On your update on your web site of the 7th October you discuss whether the Hokitika Wildfoods festival is "threatened" assuming an earthquake were to strike at the risk period of the next moon threat. You also say "we have not said an earthquake is certain on 20 March 2011, but there is potential for possible activity on an E/W fault line around the time and likely to be in the upper half of the South Island."
     6. In answer to a question I posted on this site you stated "All forecasting is about potential, based on known factors. In nature there are plenty of unknowns that we haven't discovered yet."

     I am asking a very valid question here which is — do you

     1. Predict earthquakes OR
     2. Forecast earthquakes OR
     3. Advise a "potential" for an earthquake to occur OR
     4. Do you do all three

     The reason I ask this is for clarity — we can clearly distinguish between all three. We can do this by distinguishing the differences between the meaning of earthquake prediction, forecast and potential. These are not my definitions but ones used in the scientific, theory evaluation and academic fields, so that criteria can be defined.

     An earthquake prediction specifies the location, time, and magnitude of an impending earthquake. If a predicted earthquake occurs exactly within the parameters of the prediction, it is considered successful. If an earthquake does not occur at all, the prediction is considered a "false alarm." If an earthquake occurs within another region but outside of the specific parameters defined by the prediction, it is considered a "failure to predict."

     An earthquake forecast is composed of the same three components — location, time, and magnitude but is probabilistic, and thus has some likelihood of occurrence that is less than 100% but more than 1% and can incorporate uncertainty in all 3 of the parameters. An earthquake forecast can be thought of in much the same way as a hurricane forecast, which indicates the likelihood of a certain strength of event (for example, a Category 3 hurricane) within a certain time window (such as the next 24 hours), but does not guarantee that the event will occur.

     An Earthquake Potential can be a restatement of a well understood long-term geologic earthquake hazard, or state further earthquakes could occur after a main shock or is so broad and vague that it is fulfilled by typical background seismic activity that is already known or happening, an example being earthquake clustering.

     Within the three definitions I have provided I do not believe you have predicted an earthquake or forecast an earthquake. You have provided the positioning of the moon and nodes and other moon related data in respect of your theories, but have not shown in my opinion whether any seismic activity is coincidental, circumstantial or directly related to your moon theory.

     In respect of the 20th March event, in my view, it is neither a prediction or a forecast and if something does happen on that date would you claim you predicted it or forecast it or merely stated it as a potential? You said in answer to a question of mine some weeks ago on this site you wouldn't even give a probability factor which essentially is above 1% but less than 100% of this event happening. I asked you the question, as I didn't know whether you were predicting, forecasting or stating a potential. Based on your assertion that "it could be one for the history books" which you qualified as meaning you think it could be a significant event, (but in answer to my post querying this you didn't tell us why you thought that and have still not responded) readers of that comment would be entitled to believe that the risk was greater than a potential given these words.

     "All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. (You have stated a date and time and the word "should" infers likely)

     This will probably be an east/west faultline event this time (the word probably is used but you won't give a probability factor but you do use the word event).

     It could be another for the history books."

     When I asked you for a probability factor you tell me "that is a nonsense question and a waste of my time."

     Ken I was only asking a logical question based on your posting.

     Why I have entered into discussions on this site is quite simple. Your statement about the 20th March 2011 event caused considerable consternation with people I know in Christchurch who were at that time getting to grips with an event (that you didn't predict within the definition provided) but which has had an enormous influence on their lives and attitudes. Whilst I don't place any reliance on what you stated, others did — some of them elderly. Some people I know were believing of it.

     Ken I am not a scientist, just a layman, but I have sympathy for scientists when pseudo scientists, psychics and others claim to predict earthquakes. The problem scientists have with this is if an unscientific prediction is made, scientists can not readily state that the predicted or forecast earthquake will not occur, because an event could possibly occur by chance on the predicted date, though there is no reason to think that the predicted date is more likely than any other day. Earthquake predictions should state where, when, how big, and how probable the predicted event is, and why the prediction is made. Forecasts should give at least a probability factor. You don't do that — you merely state potentials based on your moon and astrology theories. Anyone can say something could "potentially happen".

     Scientists are in a damned if I do and damned if I don't position. Indeed if I threw a dart at a dart board aiming for the bulls eye and hit the triple twenty — I could claim that that I was aiming for the triple twenty and claim success.

     If you are going to do further postings re your earthquake theories then I believe some modification of expression is required. I say that because in response to my questions re validation of earthquake prediction, your answers to me clearly indicate that is not a road you have gone down — yet the uninformed reading your 20th March prediction could be entitled to think that it is a road you have been down.

130. Comment by Ken Ring, 17 Oct, 2010

     Dave, it is a road I have been down. I am not funded and am not prepared to put in the hours required. A minute by minute analysis is what it takes, looking at all planetary angles and where they focus on the globe. This, around the clock. I did it once, as I said, and it was very successful, so much so that the media showed much interest, yet they did not know it took me about 3 days before I went public but won’t do it again. I did it to satisfy myself it could be done. A computer programme is required, astrologically-based and with fault lines loaded.

     As to your other points, some are word quibbles. All forecasting, predicting etc is in the realm of potential, because it is scientifically impossible to claim causality from sequence. I, like other experimenters, am aiming for usefulness in everything I do. Some find it so, that’s great, I do it with glad heart for them. Others find it not so, well, they needn’t read my work. I have much thank you mail from Canterburians for my ongoing article http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=home because it seems to have allayed some fears. Are you saying they are all misled, because you happen to find me less than credible? If you or anyone questions my right to publish on my own website then I ask who elected you or anyone else the spokesperson for clarity, usefulness or credibility? It is as silly a belief and as smugly high-minded as those that set up and run this website.

131. Comment by Ann, 31 Oct, 2010

     in this web site..........has anybody else noticed that the apostrophy is in the wrong place..............reader's comments. it's plural, so its readers' [or even no apostrophy ! ] reader's is singular, meaning the comments of the reader !!! we all have our own 'silly' beliefs and who knows, he may be right. and in any case, i believe, and it's proved again and again......nobody can full predict what 'mother nature' will do next.

132. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Nov, 2010

     Thanks for pointing out that punctuation error Ann. We aren't perfect and have always said that we are happy to correct errors if people point them out. We are pleased that it is evidently the only error that you noticed, especially nothing concerning our criticism of Ken Ring's forecasting claims. And since you, like us we should add, like to write correctly, we should point out that 'apostrophy' is spelt with an e, not a y. Also, in your phrase "it's plural, so its readers' ", the second "its" should also have an apostrophe. It's so easy for little errors to slip in, isn't it? And we agree with you, no one has been able to confidently predict what nature will do next, especially not Ken Ring.

133. Comment by Alan, 28 Dec, 2010

     A curious thing about science:

     In "What Is This Thing called Science", by R.F. Chalmers, one learns that the theory that "the Earth orbits the Sun", proposed by Nicholas Copernicus, was "falsified" (to use a term from philosopher Karl R. Popper), by the failure to detect any parallax of nearby stars. If the Earth went around the Sun, it was predicted that the positions of the nearby stars would shift a little as compared to the positions of the far-away stars, when comparing observations taken 6 months apart. No parallax was found, thus "proving" that the Earth did not orbit the Sun.

     However, the assumed distance of the near-by stars turned out to be an erroneous assumption. The nearby stars were further away than had been thought. The parallax effect was much smaller, and after 300 years equipment existed that allowed the small parallax to be detected.

     This is one of the examples R.F. Chalmers gives of potential problems in the "falsification" method of testing scientific theories. The assumptions upon which the testing in based may be in error.

     How then does science progress? A new technology is at least in some way "proven" simply by it working...? I seem to recall R.F. Chalmers concludes that "increasing freedom" is the test of (so-called) "science". Thinking- a more accurate view of Nature allows more freedom- more alternatives?

     Now here is a curious thing, a person by the name of Richard Stafford (Physicist I read), noted that to believe that a blue dot on a screen in a physics lab represents "the magnetic moment of an electron", requires believing in a long chain of explanation. He also noted that when you look up a word in a dictionary, you are given more words; when you look up those words, you are given still more words, until- (like the song "there's a hole in my bucket"?) you seem to be going around in circles (or I would say: refer to other matches of patterns). He tried to figure out a view of physics/Nature based on as few assumptions as possible (he did assume mathematics though).

     He called his paper "Foundations of Physical Reality", and he got close approximations to famous physics equations like Shrodinger;'s equations. He concluded that physics is a method of cataloguing information (like the Dewey decimal system in the library). He found that science (physics) appears to be "a made-up story", and that "quantum electro dynamics" was about "the assignment of definitions".

     According to John Hospers, in "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis"; things are explained in terms of other things. When you run out of "other things" in terms of which to do the explaining, you get "ultimate explanation": things just ARE. he also writes how difficult it can be to define simple everyday objects *(like "chair"). To define an "elephant", he notes that just pointing to an elephant and saying "this", may be too narrow (what about all the other elephants)(i.e. is it still an elephant if it looks like this but is at another place, or if it is a woolly mammoth so looks roughly like this)(I don't think this method is necessarily too bad a way though seems practical); however saying "an elephant is something that has four legs" is considered "too broad"- what about other things with four legs that are not elephants?

     I gave R. Stafford's paper to a mathematician, who agreed with me that underneath the maths it was about this broadening and narrowing- about categories (e.g. "things with 4 legs") and intersecting categories (e.g. "things with 4 legs" intersecting with "things with large ears").

     (curiously, It seems possible that Mark MaCutcheon's "Final Theory" may be a mirror image of "the theory final" (foundations of physical reality"))

     Richard P. Feynman wrote a book for ordinary readers called "QED The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter", in which he describes what physicists actually do, with regard to "the most accurate theory known to science", called "quantum electro dynamics".

     He describes it as "adding little arrows on a piece of paper", as "Nobody understands it" (but they know how to do the process). He also describes it as "ridiculous".
     He writes about how scientists "gave up" trying to predict Nature at the sub-atomic level, and instead work with "probabilities".

     They work out "every way an event can happen" at the sub-atomic level (basic processes being: (1) an electron goes from "A" to "B"; (2) a photon goes from "A" to "B"; (3) an electron emits or absorbs a photon). For each "way an event can happen", an arrow, like a vector, is drawn. This is called "a probability amplitude" (I could call this "a 50-50 width", and since "50-50" is "width" (or a unknown third (or more) view of the situation (or imaginary source)(a bob each way implies an observer who has "a bob each way"), so "50-50 width" would be "width width", or "two (potential) observers", or implicit communication (or a juggling of all other points of view into an imaginary matrix or differentiation vis-a-vis the two poles of the two (or more) imaginary observers (who each COULD "have a bob each way" )).

     Each arrow in QED has a length and a direction. The arrows are added head-to-tail (like vectors), with a mix of amplifying and reducing overall direction/length to get "a final arrow", which is "squared" to give a "probability of the (sub-atomic) event. The theory is said to be the most accurate theory known to science.

     In my view, the "final arrow" is already : "a square" (a neutral ground" re: all the different 50-50 widths (or the different ways of polarising the space into 2-d), i.e. it is a "final theory" or "4" (or parameter bundling-unbundling of the event)- a "non-event" of the event (hence the (postulated) "event' MUST have "happened" (in some manner or ?) for this description to apply (the "event" must have some past or future- i.e. be "charged" (or biased) in some way (this is potentially relevant to understanding the feedback channels that may occur with analysing events via small residual biases- even the perhaps small effect of gravitational pull on earthquakes (or the weather)).

     When one squares this "final arrow", this "residual error" or tilted-perspective (in some way) of the event, one is "squaring a square" - it (is apparently) "all tied up" (or all also let loose?)- it must have "happened and 'not happened' at the same time- it is (supposedly here) 'perfectly folded' (through itself)- the "event' becomes un-seen except via reference to other or more distant objects or activity.

     The event then has "natural parallax" (or is "Riemannian": its only "factors" are "itself and one" because "itself" (namely "an event that (supposedly 'happened') is "one" (a singular past-future or space-time differential- a (constant) difference between space (room) and 'time' ("anywhere within limits" (like a clock or swing of a pendulum))) .

     It is (apparently) "always seen from (at least) two (or more)"
     PERSPECTIVES.

     It is "space as if a solid object" A way of 'navigating (around) space...

     The method "quantum electro dynamics" (or "meeting generalisation room to move") does not "predict subatomic events" but simply "space neutralises them" (so they are 'neither here nor there'- they become "explained" in-so-far-as they become "(re) normalised" (connected back to other before (or after?) events (or matter) ...?

     Hence "re-normalisation" "saves QED mathematically" (allows the scientists to "make sense of the numbers" (allows the numbers to "pass through each other"- allows scientists to 'space compute the numbers' (find the room the numbers have with regard to each other (so allow (apparent) assignment of the numbers into groups (?)

     Statistical bias interferometry- this phrase comes to mind

     this is in fact what Ken Ring is (really) doing?

     He is looking for (and ocassionally finding?) "quantum bypasses in the information" (in e.g. old weather map data (interference fringes)) - i.e. finding "slippage" in the way the data interacts (with itself)- finding (some?) places where the data "grips" to other more-long-term factors (like planetary gravity allignment ) ?

     He "predicts weather' (but doesn't (yet) know properly how to "predict climate"?

     His "weather forecasts" are micro "climate forecasts" (they have (relatively) high statistical improbability

     (by now factorising out the moon (re-normalising the predictions twice (or more???) in "real-time", he can obtain a "weather-climate "prediction' (or (near) "perfect" "forecast" (?) within the limits of the (known) parameters (he can apply the new forecasts to real-time in the-vicinity raw weather data (farmers do this anyway) so resulting in a truly practical method of "forecasting the (local) weather" (i.e. by base "interference "triangulation" " (by testing a / the theory against known local situation and coming up with a locally-altered bias solution (or how climate (may) effect the weather today (how long term effects can result in short-term fluctuation(s) ?????

     Which is actually traditional met-service technique!!!!!!

     (the theory is that Ken Ring is successful re: farmers as they instinctively know how to "read his forecasts" and adjust to local knowledge to produce a level of insight into short-term forecasts that farmers find useful even if nobody understands (till now?) how or why his forecasts still seem useful to especially farmers?)

     (Incidentally, I found if I wrote out what "logic" is, I got the patterns in QED: I also found a method for analysing information: comparing and matching patterns in 2 or more dimensions; which appears to be the inverse of Edward de Bono's "lateral thinking', i.e. "direct thinking" -instead of trying to "make sense' of words/concepts chucked together, one starts with a phrase or science puzzle that already "makes sense", then finds common ground between the e.g. first two words/concepts in the phrase or problem (after simplifying often dramatically to typically to "minimum defining characteristics"), then differentiate the now two aspects on the common ground (by usually 1 step only (for idea of hopefully maximum freedom of interaction between the concepts); giving one a together-apart view of the two words/concepts; then add this to a third word/concept and repeat the 'find common ground, then differentiate by usually 1 step only" process, to get a new "free association view of the by now 3 words/concepts; continuing till the whole phrase is considered and now in "free association space", so still can make sense (but doesn't have to, so can potentially make different sense, allowing any uncertainties in the phrase or problem to be more easily seen in the context of the patterns so-far found in the phrase or problem), so giving one "room to move" in going new places )

     Alan
     (amateur scientist and inventor)

134. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 29 Dec, 2010

     Alan, some expert (Richard Feynman?) once said, if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you obviously don't. I don't pretend to grasp the complexities of relativistic quantum field theories such as QED or QCD or the electroweak theory etc. Some of what you say I understand, but much I do not. However I don't believe Ken Ring's weather prediction method has anything to do with utilizing the mathematics of quantum mechanics or renormalisation. The very basis of his method is the force of gravity, the one force that quantum mechanics ignores in its calculations.

135. Comment by Ian, 05 Jan, 2011

     I've just completed a series of emails with Ken Ring regarding his weather predictions. His first emails were reasonably rational, but rapidly degenerate into cliché, stereotype and mantra... more worthy of Leighton Smith. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and refuses to acknowledge any argument other than his own. I initially emailed him seeking comment on the independent report on NIWA's temperature readings, which climate change deniers were convinced were artificially manipulated. Needless to say the report cleared NIWA, but Ken was still convinced NIWA was wrong etc etc.

     I'm amazed that so many people give Ring an easy ride. For example, he was interviewed by Jim Mora on Radio National, and was treated very respectfully and with due reverence. He's also been interviewed by Leighton Smith, who introduced Ring as a 'weather expert'. I'd love to see someone like yourself go head to head with him in some public forum... even Campbell Live! I also forwarded my exchange to NIWA. Hopefully they're doing the rounds there. Keep up the good work.

     Here are my emails and Ken Rings responses:

     From: Ian
     Sent: Friday, 17 December 2010 7:04 a.m.
     To: Predict Weather
     Subject: Niwa's temperatures

     Ken,
     The much hyped and anticipated study on the 'cooking' of Niwa's methods and temperature findings in order to 'prove' climate change have finally been released, and guess what... Niwa was right. (Dominion A2)

     Those who accused Niwa of misinformation - like yourself and Leighton Smith - should now front up and admit you got it wrong.
     Ian

     From: Ken
     To: Ian
     Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 8:26 AM

     http://www..farmingshow.com/archives.html
     Listen to the podcast of Georgina of NIWA who said, just a week ago, no rain before Xmas.

     What is NIWA's new supercomputer doing, sitting on its hands? $42m did not foresee the September cold, the lambs dying and this great pre-Xmas drought-breaking rain (yet I did, all three, from two years away, with only a shitty old laptop)!

     Because then listen to what, on 30 November, I said on the above programme, and it was "a lot of rain between 10th -16th", I said "yes, a drought-breaker, 4 or 5 days of it, something to plan for." Exactly what has happened, and the stuff hasn't stopped falling yet, and looks like continuing until next week..

     So in the ongoing battle of the longrange weatherforecasters, between me and NIWA, in which NIWA consistently claim that my method is useless whilst they have all the answers, who got it correct? It's not the first time this has happened.

     You might also like to ask NIWA what La Nina really means, because on 1 December, James Renwick of NIWA in a press statement said La Nina meant hot, drought, high pressure systems covering the country, and on 8 December NIWA, in another press statement said La Nina meant torrential rain, the likes of which have not been seen for 21 years. That's longrange forecasting, a bob each way?

     I have consistently called for a public debate between me and NIWA. They won't have it on, yet they are both ever-happy to spout on complete rubbish about what they think lies ahead, even missing completely what is just a week away. This does farmers a huge disservice, because if they plan around their press releases, they will be well up the proverbial garden path.

     I admit I don't have all the answers, no one does, but when they state categorically that the weather is a random process, then why even say anything? Surely someone who believes that would never in their right mind go there? It would be like issuing a press release about how much money you will walk home with, before entering a casino. Fair's fair.
     Ken

     From: Ian
     Sent: Saturday, 18 December 2010 2:31 p.m.
     To: Ken

     Ken, you have totally missed/refused to acknowledge the point. Climate change sceptics insisted NIWA's temperature readings were false, and artificially high. They called for an independent review. The reviews findings published this week, clearly show Niwa's procedures are 'robust', and it is, in this case, the septics who were wrong.

     From: Ken
     To: Ian
     Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 3:18:52 PM

     Oh I know the point trying to be made. It is fallacious because NIWA is simply not a science body but a political one. They even state so in their mission statement that says they are the spokesbody on government environmental policy.. They are a financial earning house, whose business is presenting a "science" front that qualifies for state funding.. Real scientists, like Augie Auer and the Climate Science Coalition, saw through the deception a while ago. Of course the Dominion and other media, with vested financial interests in alarmism, will back NIWA to the hilt. To do otherwise risks bankruptcy.

     NIWA controlled the review themselves by their own admission, approached their equivalent Australian counterparts in a show of objectivity, and published the results of the review themselves, because they control the media ear when it comes to matters of the environment. The sceptics have no newspapers, no bottomless government coffers. A bigger kangaroo court was never before witnessed, aided by the government supporter Wayne Mapp. NIWA say it was an independent report. Ha ha, your naïveté is appalling!

     That you have completely ignored the points I made illustrates the exact point. They are unanswerable proof that NIWA is fraudulent, because the moment science is brought into any discussion NIWA is found wanting. Even when it comes to producing an independent inquiry they lack knowledge of experimental design, instead operating politically. Do you really think they would come up with a report favourable to their critics??

     Their foolish report has played into the skeptics' hands because now more than ever the sceptics have greater grounds for claiming NIWA are tax-fund wasting cheats. Their days are numbered..

     So if you are to salvage any intellectual dignity, explain to me how NIWA's procedures are robust, without referring to their self-referenced, self-examined, self-parametered and self-exoneratory review.. Because so far all the report shows is that desperation drove NIWA to such behaviour, proving that the sceptics were right..

     From: Ian
     Sent: Saturday, 18 December 2010 4:02 p.m.
     To: Ken

     Yep, and the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11, man never walked on the moon and Elvis works in Walmart.

     You appear to live in a world dominated by deception and state funded conspiracy, where only the minority (yourself ) have the luxury of the truth.

     From: Ken
     To: Ian
     Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 7:31 PM

     Never mind attacking me as a red herring, I repeat the challenge of explaining to me how NIWA's procedures are robust, without referring to their self-referenced, self-examined, self-parametered and self-exoneratory review. Because as I said so far all the report shows is that desperation drove NIWA to such behaviour, proving that the sceptics were right.

     It is not science to shift a thermometer further up a hill, do an adjustment downward with what someone thinks the differential should be, and re-present it as an unbroken record that concludes a result that is politically favourable to the government that pays your wages.

     It is not science to take a result that points out flaws in your data-gathering vs your conclusions, and redesign an experiment that will come up with an alternative result more in keeping with what your ongoing funding requires.

     Real science is keeping all variables the same and changing one of them. Like retaining a data-gathering location with all the original thermometric equipment, and purely observing temperature changes. That this was transgressed means NIWA are not scientists but fraudsters. Unless you are a scientist I don't think you can see this.

     From: Ian
     Sent: Saturday, 18 December 2010 8:12 p.m.
     To: Ken

     No, I'm not a scientist. What I can clearly see however, is a man who is so righteous in his view, that no matter what is presented to contradict this view, is dismissed without hesitation. It's very easy to claim your 'science' as correct, but to dismiss others science in cliches and emotional slogans (which you are very fond of doing). As I say, I'm not a scientist, but I'd be interested to know your credentials, as there's nothing on your website to indicate any formal scientific training or qualifications.

     From: Ken
     To: Ian
     Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 8:21 PM

     Why can't you stop attacking me? I'm not attacking you. It is paucity of debate to constantly refocus on the person rather than the points of disagreement.

     I have addressed what NIWA openly admitted they did, to further falsify data. You just want to stop me talking. Address my points about the science. The thing is, you are unable to. I assure you I am science-trained, at the University of Otago and Auckland . I did 3 years and 9 units of physics, chemistry and zoology for a science degree before I switched to arts. But that won't be enough for you. There will be some fault in that, because you are intent on personal attack.

     From: Ian
     Sent: Saturday, 18 December 2010 8:45 p.m.
     To: Ken

     Ken, I'm not attacking you personally. You are unusually sensitive on this issue. I'm simply trying to establish your credentials as a scientist... especially when you state I'm 'not one so wouldn't understand'. I have to say, that you're right... I'm not particularly impressed with your tertiary qualifications. I really don't think there's enough weight there to justify any degree of expertise on the weather. So you only have part of a science degree? I've just read your page on 'Silly Beliefs'. Makes for interesting reading.

     You are, however, entitled to your beliefs no matter what degree of qualification. In my experience however, you are not a man who accepts criticism or even objective comment very positively. In my opinion, you are in total denial of any belief that falls outside your own, no matter what evidence is provided.

     Have a good night

     PS. You really do believe the Bush administration engineered 9/11 don't you?

     From: Ken
     To: Ian
     Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 9:13 PM

     Of course you are. I didn't send you any attacking emails. Before you began your campaign I didn't know you from a bar of soap. And now here you go again, aiming for low blows because of what you read on the Silly belief fascists' blog. I understand now that you must be like them, with the jackbooted mentality.

     I accept any discussion based on science, but you refuse to take part. Despite my university background, which I did not feel was any business of Silly Beliefs or anyone else and so did not divulge it fully, and although I spent 4 years fulltime and a final year part time at university still question what credentials have to do with anything. What credentials did Al Gore have again..remind me. Or Galileo? Or Jesus Christ? Or Mother Theresa? Or the many many writers, humanitarians, explorers, and others who are so-called experts in their fields and who have made a difference..Or any of our NIWA scientists with regard to lunar science? What degree did Sir Edmund Hilary have? Are you actually capable of reasoned discussion? Genuine question.

     And this is the second time you have mentioned 9/11. I have never ever spoken of it. You have some fixation there, right down to telling me what I believe, which is news to me! Unless you wish to discuss ideas, rather than personalities, kindly desist this abusive correspondence.

     From: Ian
     Sent: Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:48 a.m.
     To: Ken

     Ken, look at what you've written. I'm not running a 'campaign' against you. I'm not attacking you personally, unless questioning your weather science counts. I think you are overly zealous and blinkered in your beliefs. I think you stereotype and categorise those who question your beliefs... but this is hardly personal abuse. 'Jackbooted mentality' is exactly my point. Does this apply to all who question you Ken? Is this the way you respond to questioning?

     'Fascists blog'? Here we go again. Such response (stereotyping, categorising, generalising) is more suited to ratings driven talkback than to someone who prides himself on being intelligent and knowledgeable. What's so 'fascist' about a site which comprehensively questions your beliefs? Is everything on the site 'fascist', or just the material that challenges you?

     I only questioned your university background, as your first email commented I wouldn't understand, as I'm not a scientist. This begs the question, are you? This is why your credentials are important. If you are not a scientist, according to your logic, you don't understand either.

     Al Gore? No scientific credentials what so ever. He was not espousing his own research, however. He was conveying a message he strongly believed in, based on the research of others. He never claimed any personal scientific qualifications... unlike yourself I have to say. Jesus Christ? Illiterate, from an illiterate family. I guess however, when you start telling uneducated, poor, downtrodden people that you have all the answers, they'll listen. He had a bit of help from his dad. 'Jesus Christ SOG' (Son of god) carries a bit more weight amongst peasants than 'Jesus Christ MSc'. Incidently, I'm impressed you felt comfortable comparing yourself to the likes of Gore, Christ etc.

     Am I capable of reasoned discussion? I have to say, yes I am. I have a university degree, I read extensively, I have an open mind on most issues and I'm not a scientist. I try to avoid stereotyping those whose views are at variance with mine, and would never say they have a 'jackbooted mentality' because they visited a website which criticised my beliefs. (I was looking for a site that endorsed through close examination your views, but there wasn't one)

     9/11? Yes, out of left field. Just curious. Thought it may fit your belief patterns.

     From: Ken
     To: Ian
     Sent: Sun, 19 December, 2010 7:06 PM

     Ian
     Anyone who subscribes to and quotes a blog that hates Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews, people of alternative medicine, of alternative immigrant cultures and descents, anyone of any other belief or creed other than western values, that seeks to cull or ruin the businesses of anyone not approved of by them, and that sets out to instruct its readers what to believe, is fulfilling the definition of the white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi. For you to quote them as your source puts you in their camp by association. You may not realise it but this is a free world, and the Stalinist stance is now gone; people can have different beliefs, including me, without fears of lynching mobs, pogroms and inquisitions, and are entitled to run small businesses around those beliefs, without being subject to personality assassination for their efforts from luddites and zealots. If you do not want to be thought of in that way, don't align yourself to those bullies. Discussion of ideas is fine, but when my actual name is heading a website thread and not my subject, and for my business and ideas I am called a fraud and conman, it is personal and slanderous. That is fascist. Whenever someone's name is mentioned like that, it is not questioning a belief, it is questioning the right of the person to that belief. Can you not, with your tertiary education, understand this difference? So much for higher learning..

     A bully is the one who starts a fight. You did, you'll recall I didn't email you first. A fascist thug kicks the person, targets the person, using the name. He does not discuss the merits of the belief in a calm academic environment. He sets up a kicking yard in an alley and hides behind a mask, in the case of SB a website kicking yard wearing the mask of nom de plume, but the behaviour of the KKK was exactly the same.. Kick, break and wreak havoc behind masks because of intolerance of other ideas. You have used the same tactic. I have yet to see a scientific argument from you, only vitriol how fraudulent I am in your eyes.

     I told you I have a university background, I have even tutored there, but it seems still not enough for you because you keep pursuing this. I did not compare myself to Galileo etc, at no stage did I say I was like them. If you cannot put aside your ant-Ken Ring sentiments, please leave me alone. I am too busy trying to help genuine people at a difficult time, people who are using my methods successfully, to bother with justifying my existence to the determinedly close-minded.

     You still have not provided evidence to your boast that NIWA are exonerated, except NIWA's own assessment. Are you going to continue the red herrings instead of addressing this?

     From: Ian
     To: Ken
     Sent: Sun, 19 December, 2010 7:15:53 PM
     

     Check out sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism, and then have an early night. Sounds like you need it

136. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Jan, 2011

     Hi Ian, thanks very much for your emails to and from Ken Ring. What can we say, the man is an idiot, a liar, a paranoid delusional scammer and conspiracy theorist. On the bright side, his attempts to defend his 'lunar science' always keep us amused. As you say, he starts off quite rational and polite but as soon as you question his method or talk about evidence, then Dr Jekyll leaves the room and Mr Hyde takes over.

     Calling this website a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi' is his most longwinded insult yet, and it is quite clear who is actually feeling the emotion of hate.

     Like you Ian I was amazed that Ring was arrogant enough to liken himself to Galileo, Jesus, Mother Teresa etc. Al Gore yes, a person with no science qualifications speaking out on the climate debate, but these others just show how highly Ring thinks of himself and his mission in life. As you said, Ring was questioning your ability to understand the debate if you weren't a scientist, but couldn't see that that must also apply to him. I don't know whether he's stupid enough to believe his arguments or just thinks everyone else will.

     Regarding the science degree, we have noted that Ring has claimed that 'I have had 9 years of university science training' which he has changed of late to 'I have three years of university science units'. Surely you would remember how long you were at university? In emails to you he claimed that 'I did 3 years and 9 units of physics, chemistry and zoology'. Yet not an hour later he then claimed that he 'spent 4 years fulltime and a final year part time at university'. Was it 9 years, 4 and a bit years or 3 years? This inability to keep his story consistent smacks of fabrication. Along the same fraudulent lines, he also told you that he did 'physics, chemistry and zoology for a science degree', and yet back in 2000 when asked about his 'scientific credentials', Ring replied that he took 'psychology and anthropology at university'. There are lies afoot. And as we detail on our website, Ring's grasp of even basic science is abysmal. All we know for sure is that if Ring even went to university, he failed to obtain a degree in either science or the arts.

     And you're quite right, there simply doesn't appear to be a single pro-Ring website that supports Ken Ring and his method with reasoned argument. There are untold numbers supporting Creationism and psychics and alien abduction, but none supporting Ken. Another government conspiracy perhaps?

     And again Ring claims successful predictions that he never made, confident that no one will check his almanac: 'What is NIWA's new supercomputer doing, sitting on its hands? $42m did not foresee the September cold, the lambs dying... (yet I did... from two years away, with only a shitty old laptop)!' We have already pointed out to Ring in Comment #85 above that he completely missed the extreme weather in September when snow caused the collapse of the 10 million dollar Southland Stadium, and the entire country was racked with vicious storms and floods. Any fool can talk about predictions made after the event.

     Thanks for sharing Ring's delusional outburst with us. Everything he says just convinces us more that what he does is a scam.

137. Comment by Mike, 24 Jan, 2011

     Ken Ring is at it again.
     http://www.theherald.com.au/blogs/jeff-corbett/weather-by-the-moon/2016153.aspx

     Here's a link to the actual weather results for December. I'm planning to wait for a few weeks to see how off the mark he is in January.
     http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201012/html/IDCJDW2097.201012.shtml

     So far he has missed by miles. December was not even near wetter than average, and was in fact substantially dryer than average. 18 days of rain? Not even close. He did say "may be" though, not "will be", so i guess in his twisted manner of reinterpretation he got it right.

     "January may be mostly dry, only about six rain days, just a few isolated showers in ranges, with chance of odd heavy falls about the 6th and/or 16th."

     Just an example of the ambiguous language he deliberately uses — and/or. On the 6th there was some heavy rain, but nothing at all around the 16th. If queried on it he'll say "i said the 6th OR the 16th, therefore i was right". It's utter garbage. He also specifies that you should allow a day either side, so his prediction effectively was that one day in 6 (5th, 6th, 7th, 15th, 16th, 17th) would have heavy rain. If there was any rain on any of these days he'd claim a successful prediction. I say this because he repeatedly states that he doesn't predict how much rain, just that there'll be some, and then goes on in this prediction to say that it will be heavy rain. Which is it???
138. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Jan, 2011

     Thanks for your comments Mike and your links. And you're right of course. Ring uses very vague and ambiguous statements — might be, maybe, could be, dry and/or wet — and then after the event pretends that he was certain all along, that he actually said 'would be' and 'will be'.

     And when he's way out with his predictions, he actually claims more than a day either side: 'You should allow up to a week. You may think that is unreasonable, but this is longrange forecasting... You have to have a point of focus, which is the day or so that I specify, but it is not that important and I don't fret too much if I am out by a few days.' And he not only wants a large window in time but also in space: 'there is huge potential for rain overshoot. Sometimes it may rain at sea and miss the land altogether. But if it is within 50 miles I would call it a successful forecast'. How could any sane person claim they're making accurate predictions if they're a week and/or 50 miles out? They couldn't. You'd have to be a delusional astrologer.

     And yes, Ring insists he can't predict the amount of rainfall, and yet talks about showers or heavy falls, which is describing the amount that will fall. As you say, he wants it both ways, so no matter what happens, one of his many contradictory statements will match reality.

139. Comment by Carol, 03 Feb, 2011

     For your website discussion on Ken Ring. I suspect it is a complete waste of time trying to get him to acknowledge any errors in his thinking, but what the heck.

     From Ken Ring on 18 Dec 2010:

     'I accept any discussion based on science'

     Ken, this is just Tui billboard-grade irony.

     OK then, here is a point of science for you to discuss. You have claimed that:

     Bricks Don't Float Up
     Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air. They are like a brick in a swimming pool. It is not often that you will see a brick floating to the surface of your pool. CFCs are so dense that even as a gas you could fill a bucket with it and pour the contents of one bucket into another. Secondly there is no evidence that they can destroy anything because they are very stable and unreactive substances. Most dictionaries and chemistry books describe them as inert gases.

     It wouldn't surprise me at all if your knowledge of science was derived from reading dictionaries, but if you were to pick up and read an actual chemistry book, such as the excellent and accessible 'An introduction to environmental chemistry', by J.E. Andrews, P. Brimblecombe, T.D. Jickells and P.S. Liss, of the University of East Anglia, published in 1996 by Blackwell Science, you will find that your summary is, in fact, wrong in all important regards. Pay particular attention to the section on atmospheric residence times.
140. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Feb, 2011

     Yes Carol, it is pretty much a waste of time trying to get Ken Ring to acknowledge his errors, but as you realise, it is important to point out to others that are prepared to think and weigh up the evidence that most of RIng's claims are just nonsense designed to fool the gullible.

141. Comment by Carol, 04 Feb, 2011

     Hi John. It's interesting how his affability disappears when anyone challenges him and he starts using accusations such as 'jackbooted fascist' and more. I think the real scandal is that he gets such a free ride in most media. I'd love to see Kim Hill interview him :-). Good on NZ Geographic for giving him a hard time too.

     I was interested to see that he claims that government departments use his services. From his website:

     "Some of Australia and NZ's biggest retail chains, like The Warehouse and BBQ Factory regularly use Predict Weather services, as well as government departments such as DOC and the Fire Service, also power companies such as Vector, farm consultancies such as Dairy Production Systems, and event organisers such as Opera-in-the-Park, Mission Bay Jazz Festival, the Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington Farmers Santa Parades and the Ellerslie Flower Show"

     DOC? Really?
     I suspect this is a straightforward lie but it would be pretty alarming if it was true.

     Keep up the good work.

142. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Feb, 2011

     Hi Carol, unfortunately most media would, and do, promote witches and brothels if there is a dollar in it for them. They run horoscopes solely because they are paid to, and will continue to give Ring a free ride as long as he pays them or he brings in listeners. They are not about promoting the truth.

     Thanks for that snippet about DOC etc using his services. I hadn’t noticed that. I can understand why the Santa Parade folk might be interested in the weather, by why the Warehouse or the BBQ Factory? They sell BBQs, not run them. I’ll try contacting a few of the places and see if they are prepared to admit to their use of Ring. In the past he claimed that two ski companies in Central Otago used his services so I emailed them. One didn’t reply but the other denied any connection with Ring, so like you I don’t trust him. We're updating our Ring page at present so it would be interesting to add their response, if any, especially the likes of DOC.

Return to Article

Add a Comment