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:

335. Comment by Mike, 18 May, 2012

     Not sure whether this fits your blog or not, but I find it good for a giggle when nut-jobs start infighting.

     Ken Ring Poo Poos Notion of Aerosols — What Planet Is He Living On?

336. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 19 May, 2012

     Thanks for the link Mike. While nut-jobs are always disagreeing with skeptics, it is indeed amusing when they realise that people as nutty as they are don't agree with their pet theory. The comments following Ring's article on chemtrails are typical of conspiracy theorists, with believers in chemtrails convincing themselves that Ring has been bribed to say what he says. Ring himself accused us of exactly this. If someone disagrees with these nutters, Ring included, then evil powers have bought their opposition. It's quite laughable really:

     Peter Capper says:
     He obviously does not know what we know therefore is either been paid off to debunk this reality or isnt as informed as many perceive...

     Clare Swinney says:
     If he watched the DVDs I sent him, as he intimated he would, he must know about geo-engineering/chemtrails and "HAARP."

     Takatu says:
     Then he's in their pocket... see what happens when he gets the media and the nation's attention like he did with his elementary earthquake predictions... the buggers up top realise he can be a huge asset to debunk any further evil doings they perpetrate by paying him off...

337. Comment by Ian, 25 May, 2012

     John, how the hell did Ken Ring get a blog on Yahoo "news" site?

338. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 May, 2012

     Unbelievable. When I checked the Yahoo! New Zealand News site there was several articles by Ken Ring listed, and this was at the top of the Opinion page under the heading Yahoo! News Makers: Can we affect the weather? They all appear to be copies of articles from his own website.

     It makes a joke of a News site if Ring and his nonsense can be presented as legitimate news. What's next, articles by witches and alien abductees? Ring provides articles that are blatantly false, poorly researched, error ridden and sprinkled with plagiarised text that cater to the lowest intellect, those that desire a fantasy world to match their primitive superstitions and ignorance. On the bright side, some of his articles were getting plenty of comments, and nearly all were scathing. Like you and I Ian, they were stunned that an idiot spouting such ridiculous notions could be given a soapbox on what used to be a respectable site.

     My guess is it's probably a typical media ploy. It's like those tabloids that have the likes of 'Page 3 Girls', that need naked boobs to attract the ignorant plebs to their pages. They no doubt think Ring is as bright as a lump of coal but realise his mere presence will attract his ignorant followers as well as the intelligent who are indignant that a so-called News site would take him seriously. And it's worked, you and I have visited and are discussing it. The problem with much of the media is that they are more interested in selling a product than informing the public. One more step in dumbing down society, one more site that we can longer trust to tell us the truth.

339. Comment by John, 27 May, 2012

     Hi John, yeah, Ken Ring has been spewing his nonsense on the Yahoo site for some weeks now. The stupidity of the articles is breathtaking. All seem to be about spreading absolute rubbish about climate change, which could be summed up as follows (in a general sense, the articles are actually just incoherent, unconnected sentences usually containing made-up laughable claims):

     1. Humans are small in a world scale sense, and therefore can't influence the climate/weather (Ken seems unable to differentiate between the two).

     2. Even if we could influence it, we can't measure the climate in any way at all, therefore climate change can't be happening.

     3. Additionally, even if it were happening, the climate has always been changing, therefore humans can't have any effect.

     That these pre-school level 'arguments' can be made on a news site strongly suggests they are there just to provoke reaction, similar to the rational behind having Paul Henry or Jeremy Clarkson comment on anything. The problem is that many people will read these articles by Ken Ring, and instead of pointing and laughing at the idiot (which I would think is the appropriate response), will have their conspiracy-theory beliefs strengthened. It's enough to make you want to bang your head against a wall. Repeatedly.

     Well done on the webpage, keep up the good work!

340. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 May, 2012

     We agree John, Yahoo! must have someone on staff that realises how silly Ring's climate change rubbish is. Even if there are arguments against AGW, Ring certainly isn't stating them. He's been allowed to rant simply to provoke and increase traffic to their site. Ring's silly arguments also fit in with his astrological beliefs, where everything is controlled by things out there in the cosmos and we are mere pawns in the scheme of things, unable to influence anything and just along for the ride. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be.

341. Comment by Mike, 14 Jun, 2012

     Even Ken Ring doesn't believe in chemtrails — http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post/-/blog/news_makers/post/104/comment/1

     I'm not sure which "side" this awesomely bad piece of writing actually helps tho!!

342. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Jun, 2012

     Yes Mike, even when Ring occasionally makes the right call, he ruins it by including his own nonsense:

     'Earthquakes are caused by stress on the earth's electromagnetic field caused by increased solar activity. Higher-pressured air can therefore signal the timing of earthquakes.'

     It's weird how most idiots can clearly see through the silly beliefs of others but not their own.
343. Comment by Dave, 16 Jun, 2012

     Gosh, I've read all Ken's stuff on Yahoo and in local smaller newspapers here and dumb web sites (Not the Christchurch Press though — bless them — I believe their staff and reporters are actually intelligent).

     The emotional impact with Christchurch people that I know when you mention Ken's name, is a compelling reason why this man must continue to be questioned & probed. Thanks for having the guts to do so.

344. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Jun, 2012

     I think we all have part to play Dave. Whenever someone suggests that we should listen to Ring, one should giggle loudly, and proclaim, 'Wow... I never took you for someone who would listen to a moron who bases his predictions on astrology'.

345. Comment by Baldrick the Third, 16 Jun, 2012

     Re post 338 and Can we affect the weather?

     It's not clever stuff is it?

346. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Jun, 2012

     Ring is not capable of writing clever stuff Baldrick, and if something in one of his articles does appear erudite, it is almost certain that the entire passage has been stolen by Ring from someone else's article, book or website. We have already shown that Ring is a prolific plagiarist, and ever though he has been exposed, he continues to steal text and pass it off as his own. And yet overall, his articles still scream nonsense.

347. Comment by Dave, 05 Jul, 2012

     A person told me today they had read an article attributed to Ken Ring that the next destructive magnitude 7 earthquake is likely to be in mid NZ centred somewhere between Marlborough and the Waiarapa around 2015/16.

     I found the following cached in Yahoo news that corroborates what I was told. Article attributed to Ken Ring:

     The next destructive above-7mag in NZ is likely to be in central NZ about 2015/16, with epicentre between Marlborough and Wairarapa.

     The article also says:

     Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa. Earthquakes cause "rubbing together" of tectonic plates, not vice versa.

     Hence, purely as a reader of the article, I am assuming that the likely 2015/16 above mag 7 with epicentre between Marlborough and Wairarapa will not be on a fault line?

     The reason I ask that, is because this is the infamous possible history making 20 March 2011 prediction where it seems to me it is predicted that the earthquake would be on a faultline.

     "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."

     I debated the 20 March possible history making event with Ken on your site and argued that there were many east west fault lines outside of the Marlborough and N Canterbury. I asked Ken the following question:

     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?

     Kens response. 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.

     I am now very very confused as to whether earthquakes happen on faults or cause faults.

     Can you help?

348. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Jul, 2012

     Yes Dave, we can help. Take two aspirin, and repeat this mantra twice daily: Listening to Ken Ring to learn about earthquakes is as worthless as watching Sesame Street to learn about sadomasochism.

     Seriously though, you should be pleased that having read Ring's claims you're now very confused, how could you not be? Having listened to Ring, people that aren't then confused obviously haven't fully understood what he's said.

     Because the claims Ring makes don't have to match reality and scientific evidence — in his mind at least — he can say anything he wants, even if it contradicts what he has said previously. This is the great advantage of dealing in fantasy, of writing fiction, you can just make things up. Unfortunately, just because Ring's claims go against science and are chock full of contradictions it's no guarantee that other deluded, lazy and ignorant souls won't think it's all true. Just take the masses that blindly flock to religions' holy books, whose claims also contradict science and are full of contradictions. Our experience is that followers of both Ring and religion are generally woefully ignorant of science and history and blindly accept whatever these deluded prophets predict. There is no rational thought involved either on the part of the prophet or the follower. Both are happy to immerse themselves in fantasy and silly beliefs and construct a world where their desires and imagination dictate how the universe functions. While this may be expected from primitive societies and young children, it's depressing that adults willingly retreat into these fantasies. But then Ring's career relies on stupid people.

     And as you'll be well aware, Ring has simply set up a vague prediction that no matter where an earthquake occurs, be it on a fault line or not, he can claim to have predicted it. This is typical Ring, making predictions that are so all-encompassing that any and all future earthquakes can be claimed. And while rare, we know that earthquakes can occur far away from tectonic plate boundaries. They're known as intraplate quakes and are utterly unpredictable.

     And didn't Ring promise to stop predicting earthquakes? Let's remember that Ring wrote: 'In a recent article on my website I expressed that because of the way some were misinterpreting my intentions, albeit accelerated by the media, it would be best stop talking about potential earthquake timings... I gave that assurance and unless there is some media or politician-led change I do intend to be true to that word'. Regarding his earthquake predictions he also wrote that 'As this is an experiment, if I am incorrect in my dates then I am willing to bow my head in defeat and go back to the drawing boaed' [sic]. His predictions were wrong, and there has been no 'media or politician-led change' that has encouraged him to continue with his astrological nonsense, so why isn't he remaining true to his word and shutting up about earthquakes? Ring just can't trusted, either to keep his word or to grasp that any silly 'astrological fix' he dreams up won't have any affect on earthquakes. Maybe in his fantasy world, but not in the real world where real earthquakes happen.

349. Comment by Anonymous, 14 Aug, 2012

     Are you guys going to get something up about Ken Ring spending an hour on Radio Live this afternoon?

     He is bringing out all the crazies!

350. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Aug, 2012

     I didn't hear Ring on Radio Live. Unfortunately he doesn't advise us of his upcoming media appearances, which is a shame since we always enjoy a laugh. But we all know that the moronic masses love nonsense, superstition and scandal and that the media happily panders to them. The likes of Ring will always find avenues to advertise their scams, the real challenge is not to ban or censor these idiots but to educate their potential audience so that they can recognise twaddle when they hear it.

351. Comment by Alison, 20 Aug, 2012

     There's a transcript from August 7 on-line:
     http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Ken-Ring-Are-we-being-kept-in-the-dark-by-GNS-Science/tabid/506/articleID/29850/Default.aspx

     Were they so impressed with his performance then that they asked him back? But no, checking the website I see he seems to have had a couple of slots on there lately. Anyways, from the Aug 7 session:

     Apparently seismologists have been monitoring all this activity on Tongariro & keeping very quiet about it because 'it would lead back to the moon'. (D'oh, why didn't I think of that?) He also seems to think that solar eclipses are linked to seismic events. He also says that 'solar wind speed is up by 20% over the last couple of days', to which I must respond 'o rly?' and 'citations please'. Solar wind velocities vary quite a bit (http://mms.rice.edu/realtime/forecast.html) & just eyeballing the graphs at that link suggest a 20% change over a day is nothing unusual.

     Claims to have predicted Tongariro before the event — tweet linking solar wind, king tides & some event; apparently without naming Tongariro in the tweet mind you, but says he does so on his website.

     Claims that GNS is 'not being truthful' by not letting people know about Tongariro in advance... It's their job to warn people, he says. Whereupon the interviewer asks, where's the next volcano going to go off do you think? Ken responds 'I dunno, you can't work out exactly where and what time & how big it's going to be, you can only point out risk times, risk periods & risk reasons.' (A 'risk reason' seems to be the imminent solar eclipse — there's a full eclipse that'll be visible from Australia on November 14 this year...)

     Ah well, back to the grind. (Thank you for a good excuse for a diversion!)

352. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Jul, 2012

     Hi Alison. Thanks for the link and info. So Ring claims to have predicted the Tongariro eruption? Why isn't that surprising? Ring is infamous for claiming to have predicted events AFTER the events have happened. I once heard the rumour that he claimed to have predicted the demise of the dinosaurs and the French Revolution too.

     I like how he creates the conspiracy that GNS is 'not being truthful' in hiding advance knowledge of the Tongariro eruption. But then elsewhere he claims that GNS are ignorant as to what causes volcanic eruptions and earthquakes so how could they hide what they don't know? He can't have it both ways. If they knew when Tongariro was going to erupt then that means that their theories are correct and not Ring's crackpot ideas. If Ring's ideas about volcanoes are correct, then GNS knew nothing and thus had nothing to hide.

     In addition to this, Ring thinks it's his destiny to warn us of extreme events, so why wasn't he loudly and CLEARLY warning us of Tongariro BEFORE the event? Was he colluding with GNS to hide the truth of Tongariro from us? He's always very quick to accuse others of negligence or worse, but he can never explain why he hides his predictions until after the fact. He'll say that the media doesn't ask for his predictions, which of course would be a lie since he was talking on radio in this example. But even if this were the case, he could easily prove the validity of his predictions by lodging them with a lawyer or sending them to the media BEFORE the events happened, proving that they were true and accurate predictions. We would soon take notice of his successful predictions, but strangely he refuses to do this. We think that it is Ring that is not being truthful.

     As for Ring's all-encompassing 'risk times, risk periods & risk reasons', we already know that he makes them so vague and so widespread that pretty much any hour of any day at any place is a time and place that extreme or benign weather, earthquakes and brain eating zombies might strike. If you asked Ring about important health risk factors, he would probably say that being alive is the major risk factor, and that the time between your birth and death is when you're most likely to suffer ill health. Outside that window, you can relax.

353. Comment by Miles, 08 Sep, 2012

     Why hasn't The Ring picked this?

     Mt. Fuji May Be Close To Erupting

     And the story just above it was:

     The Motivated Rejection of Science

     And it's only Saturday.[??]

354. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Sep, 2012

     We must remember Miles that if Mt. Fuji erupts, then Ring definitely WILL tell us that he knew, but he'll only reveal this knowledge AFTER it has.

     I enjoyed the bit about the research that found that 'those who subscribed to one or more conspiracy theories... were more likely to reject the findings from climate science as well as other sciences'. It fits Ring perfectly. Expanded articles on this can found here:

     What motivates rejection of (climate) science?

     Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?

355. Comment by Brian, 02 Oct, 2012

     Hi John, just debating something with Ken Ring. In your Silly Beliefs column you state that he did not predict the March 2012 weather bomb and instead wrote "March 3, Saturday Isolated showers in Southland, Otago and South Canterbury. Showers in the North Island but scattered to the east. Fine elsewhere. March 4, Sunday Mainly fine, but isolated showers still possible. ". Ken claims he did predict it by saying in his summary on p132 that he predicted rain in Wellington and Nelson. I do not have an Almanac to check either statement. Do you have a page reference for his earlier (March 3/March 4) prediction?

     Seems he thinks he can predict two contradictory things in different parts of a book, wait until after the event, and then choose the correct one and claim he was right (albeit out by a couple of hundred kms....)

     Thanks.

356. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Sep, 2012

     Hi Brian. Sorry, like you, I don't have his latest Almanac, I have better things to spend my money on. I consulted the one at my local library, so I don't have the page numbers for his March 3 & March 4 predictions. But anyone with an Almanac, eg Ring, can easily find the relevant pages. Ring provides 'detailed' day forecasts where he devotes an entire page to every day of the year.

     As I explained to Ken in comment # 316, after he childishly tried to claim that he did predict the weather bomb (#315), no where in his book, in his summary or elsewhere, did he predict the storm in Taranaki. Nelson is not Taranaki.

     Ring seems to have no idea what a truly useful prediction would entail. All you say is correct, he produces contradictory predictions, reveals one of them after the event and pretends that missing a region by several hundred kilometres (or several days) still counts as a hit. I wonder if he goes into his local Lotto shop each week and argues that his losing ticket is actually a winner, since in the big world of numbers, 38 is quite close to 40, and 3 is close to 6. And in Ring's fantasy world, that means his tickets, whatever random numbers they might have, are always close enough to those winning numbers that Lotto are so fussy about. But I did predict the correct numbers!! Sure you did Ken.

     If you're debating with Ken, I assume you've just started, since he quickly loses patience with anyone who questions his methods or calls for evidence, and will soon liken you to Nazis or Stalinists before skulking back to Ringworld. Which is a place a little like the Vatican in Rome, a little world fuelled by fantasy situated in greater Auckland.

357. Comment by Dave, 17 Oct, 2012

     Dear Silly Beliefs, I was just wondering what influence the earth has on the moon in respect of moon weather and if the moon has "quakes" — given that having read Kens writings and heard his talks on some silly radio stations, it is always about the influence of the moon on earth. To your knowledge has Ken published any articles about earths influence on the moon re weather and quakes up there?

     I kind of feel that if Ken talks about the moons effect on earth in respect of weather and earthquakes, then he should have knowledge about the reverse and that I should be entitled to ask my question — "so what is the effect of the earth on the moons weather and does the moon have quakes, and if so how frequently, where, and does the moon have tectonic plates? (because there are certainly no oceans up there bashing against them — and my research tells me no whales either). If they do have quakes when is the next one due — and is it possible to ascertain within 500 kilometres — where on the moon — perhaps the Northern Sea of Serenity, or Sea of Fertility South Western Limb?"

     I would also invite Ken to answer not only those questions — but also this one — "whilst the moon may exert some gravitational force in earth — what is the difference between the moon's gravitational force on the earth compared to the earth's gravitational force on the moon — is the earth gravitational force 20, 100, 1000 times greater or what?"

     I just think that if Ken talks about the moon's effects on earth then I would be interested to know what the effect of the earth is on the moon.

358. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Oct, 2012

     Hi Dave. When you ask about the moon's weather, we would say that the moon has no weather. My dictionary defines weather as: 'The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure'. Since the moon has no atmosphere it can't by definition have weather. But in Ringworld things are different. Ring is on record stating that 'the state of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the weather' and 'Weather cannot arise from air or anything in air...' and that 'There are planets with weather but no atmosphere. Just google that if you don't believe me'. While I can't recall Ring saying that the moon has weather, based on these quotes of his it seems that the moon could well have weather ... which no doubt is just as unpredictable to astrologers and farmers on the moon as it is to astrologers and farmers here on Earth.

     As for quakes on the moon, yes the moon does have moonquakes. Have a read of this interesting article: NASA Science: Moonquakes. The moon doesn't have tectonic plates to cause its quakes, but then Ring doesn't believe quakes are caused by plate movement anyway. The moon does have tides (in the land) caused by the earth for the same reason that the moon causes tides in the Earth's seas (and to a much lesser degree, in the land and atmosphere).

     However, since the moon has no atmosphere, the earth's influence on the moon can have no effect on its non-existent weather. But since Ring's theories on quakes are based on the gravitational influence between the earth and the moon, and nothing to do with plate tectonics, then Ring should most certainly be able to predict when and where quakes will occur on the moon. Unfortunately his excuse will be that there are no widespread devices on the moon for recording quakes (or weather) and no one is interested anyway, so he won't waste his time predicting them. And if Ring did arrogantly predict a quake on the far side of the moon on Xmas Day, how could anyone ever prove him wrong? But certainly the 'ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' that Ring uses should be able to predict weather and quakes on any planet or moon in the solar system. But first Ring would need some gullible alien on Mars or Titan that was prepared to pay for his predictions.

     As for your question, 'what is the difference between the moon's gravitational force on the earth compared to the earth's gravitational force on the moon', this is a trickier question. The gravitational force is the same, as this article explains: Gravitational Interactions of the Earth and Moon, stating that 'the force the Earth exerts on the Moon is numerically identical to the force the Moon exerts on the Earth'. It goes on to say that 'each exerts a force on the other which, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion (the Law of Action and Reaction), is equal and opposite to the force that the other is exerting on it; but although the forces are equal, their effects are not, because the more massive Earth is accelerated less by the same force, than the less massive Moon'.

     Ring is correct in that it is the moon that has the greatest effect on our tides, greater than the sun even though the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun is actually 180 times greater than the gravitational force between the Earth and the moon. This is because, though much bigger, the sun is much further away. It is the Sun's tidal forces that are less than the moon's, not its gravitational force. This is where looking solely at the gravitational force can be misleading. And things get more complicated when you consider the basis of Ring's theory, that the moon's gravity (and to a much lesser extent the sun's gravity) causes the earth's weather. However Ring doesn't really understand the crucial difference between the gravitational force between two bodies and the tidal forces between those two bodies. While gravitational forces cause tidal forces, it is the strength of the tidal forces that determine tides, not the gravitational force per se. For example, a swimming pool right next to an ocean won't experience any tides even though the ocean will, and yet they both essentially experience the same gravitational force. The gravitational force doesn't suddenly increase when you step from the pool to the ocean, but the tidal forces do.

     However there is no evidence, contrary to Ring's mythology, that tidal forces between the moon and earth cause our weather or earthquakes. But Ring should claim, if he understands his method, that he can predict weather and quakes on the moon. But again, my guess is that Ring will sidestep this challenge by simply saying that it doesn't make economic sense to put out an almanac for the moon. Let's remember, that unlike science that seeks knowledge for knowledge sake, Ring is in this for the money, not the enlightenment of the masses.

359. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Nov, 2012

     Yesterday we were alerted to the fact that weather and earthquake astrologer Ken Ring is still crawling through the fetid sewer that the world knows as Ringworld. His latest piece of fantasy writing is 'The Climate of Science Change', and Ring's inclusion on the nz.news.yahoo.com site is redefining the term 'news', with some people confusing Ring's fantasies with reality. Ring's article is nothing but a disjointed, rambling piece of nonsense, and not worth reading, so don't say you weren't warned. But we were directed to one of Ring's comments following his article, which we found amusing. For someone that has had the arrogance to threaten us with legal action for (nonexistent) defamation, it's revealing that Ring doesn't believe or grasp that defamation laws also apply to him. In response to a reader's comment, Ring replies:

     'yes silly beliefs fit the definition of fascist racist homophobes, just read their subject matter. Anything alternative is fair game to them. They even told me when I was writing responses to their mad rants about me... that they saw themselves as teachers of ethics and morals. So I employed someone to do a search, and lo and behold, that's what they are registered as. Well, if that isn't the living breathing Gestapo then I don't know what is. They also sell lists of recommended books, so seem to have a commercial bias towards books in competition. They also sell forecasts to companies, so would see me as competition.'

     The vile insults and outright lies spewing from Ring's keyboard are in essence nothing new, and not a surprise to us. Ring has voiced them many times, all except the accusation that we are now also homophobic. Who knows where that comes from, and certainly Ring will never say.

     If you've read our article debunking Ken Ring's forecast nonsense, or glanced at any other article or blog post on our site, you'll have found no support on our part for fascism, racism or homophobia, nor for that matter, any books or weather forecasts for sale. If, like Ken Ring, you can detect racism, homophobia or a Shopping Cart icon on this site then either English is not your first, or second, language, or you're just not too bright. But misunderstanding our comments is not what causes Ring to vent his spleen and concoct lies and untruths. So what is it that terrifies Ring so and motivates him to defame us? That's simple really: blind fear of business failure — his business — brought about by our exposure of the nonsense that he promotes.

     Does this ongoing defamation by Ring upset or concern us? Not at all. Contrary to Ring's unsupported claims, there is no commercial bias to our criticism of his 'astrological science'. We simply challenge his claims because we believe they are wrong, and that selling a falsehood to a gullible public is unethical. Commercially we are not concerned that people might believe him, since we have no business to lose. And reputation wise, if some people are so intellectually challenged that they believe Ring's claims, then we are already worlds apart and their view of us doesn't worry us at all. If we feel anything, it would be pity and disappointment that ignorance is still rife in the 21st century.

     On the other hand, that Ring has to resort to blatant lies in a childish attempt to combat our claims is in one sense quite reassuring. It means we're doing something right. It is a clear sign of utter desperation on his part, of bleak resignation that rational argument has deserted him, that material evidence and support has eluded him, that the only option left open to someone with questionable morals and a shady business to promote is to defame his critics. Ring needs to belittle our site and dismiss our criticism by fair means or foul. And fair means, in the sense of rational argument, didn't work for him, so that only leaves foul means.

     If Ring made rational challenges regarding our reasoning, our logic or our science then we would have cause for concern, but he does not. Since Ring can't dismiss the embarrassing facts that show his claims and comments to be nothing but childish and primitive nonsense, then in frantic desperation Ring resorts to the tools of the scoundrel, the miscreant, the cheat, the liar and the con-man. He resorts to lies, deceptions, untruths and vile insults. He attacks the person in a shameful attempt to distract readers from the real argument. Known as ad hominem, this form of attack is normally a clear sign of someone who lacks a rational response. Devoid of any real argument, Ring falls back on threats, insults and lies.

     The trouble is that Ring pretends that he has no idea what a real argument is. Even if we were fascist, racist homophobes — which we deny utterly — this would in no way automatically mean that our criticism of Ring's views must therefore be false. If a racist claims that the world is round or a homophobe claims intelligent design is bogus, they are both still correct, even though you may disagree with their views on race or homosexuality. Likewise, even if we did sell books and forecasts in competition to Ring, again this does not automatically mean our criticism of Ring's views must therefore be false. If his logic is correct, that people in competition with each other naturally lie and cheat to defame the other, then Ring is admitting that he is also lying and cheating to combat the claims of his perceived competitors, eg the MetService. On the other hand, if Ring claims that he can criticise and be in competition with the likes of the MetService without making up lies about them, then why can't we be equally honest? Why does Ring make the bogus and offensive assertion that our disagreement with his views are manufactured lies based on our competitive streak and/or a deep seated hatred of those with views different to ours? Again, it's a simple fear response, he's running scared and is falling back on ancient reptilian instincts.

     And yet Ring is too cowardly to go to the mainstream media and repeat his insults, such as calling us 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazis' or insisting that we 'hate Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews [and] people of... immigrant cultures and descents'. Too cowardly to make public his childish conspiracy theory claims that Silly Beliefs is nothing but a front for major corporations in competition with him, a website designed solely to malign him. He has falsely accused us of slander, threatened us with legal action, and yet is too cowardly to go ahead and expose us. If he believes in his claims, and has the evidence to support them, why does he only whisper his accusations in the equivalent of back alleys? And why, more importantly, does he never follow up his accusations with the evidence that supports them? When challenged, by us or others on other blogs, why does Ring immediately throw a hissy fit, and with insults flying in a skunk-like fashion, quickly retreats into the sewers once more? Simple, Ring has no evidence to support his claims. And by definition of course, lies can never be supported.

     Ring lies because he is desperate to promote his business, a fraudulent business based on primitive, superstitious nonsense. He lies because lies are the only option left open to him, with truth and reason and evidence playing on the opposing team. And he throws insults because insults are the defensive response of those caught lying. Creating yet more lies to prop up previous lies and in a fit of blind rage, Ring is driving fast down a dead end road with a cliff at the end. It can only end badly for him.

     UPDATE: 19 Nov 2012

     As expected, after reading the above post Ring has not attempted in any way to support his lies and insults. Instead he has gone on a witch-hunt, no doubt consulting some poor cat's paws in an attempt to reveal who might have passed on his venomous comments. But primitive prophesy has always caused the innocent to suffer the wrath of ignorant soothsayers, and Ring has now gone on to accuse an innocent commenter on the Yahoo site of being a tattletale. Ring doesn't seem to grasp that while Internet users can't make comments on that site without having a Yahoo ID, we can still all read the comments. So again Ken, we repeat, you are throwing accusations and insults at an innocent party, but nothing out of the ordinary for you I guess. Instead of trying to hide your embarrassing defamation by frantically finding and shooting the messenger, why don't you grow a backbone and support your vile accusations. We're waiting.

     But seriously, since Ring can't defend the indefensible, we'll move on to his latest example of verbal diarrhoea and yet more evidence that our criticism of him is really hitting the spot. We've changed the commenter's ID to 'Commenter X' since we don't want to exacerbate Ring's error.

     'Commenter X, as you are the main one here who is such a devoted fan of the Silly Beliefs anti-Ken Ring websites, and have said so many times, and because samples of recent correspondence in this particular comments section have suddenly been posted there at the same time as your posts temprarily diminished here, together with the Silly beliefs usual jackboot-kick-in-the-guts attack on my work, it is reasonable to assume you have been posting there. If my assumption is incorrect then I apologise. But if I am correct then you should apologise. Whoever has been leaking what is here, direct to Silly beliefs for a duplicate beatup needs to be brought to account because it amounts to public thievery from two aspects. It is shameful and heinous behaviour, decrying to a second party about a third party that you both hate, so that you can get more bullies in your side for a real gang-up, with the attempt to diminish my business and lessen potential interest by those who may personally benefit from my service... Because my work is in NZ's agricultural community I am in a capacity to help. By making trouble for me in other forums you undermine the potential for public good... Imagine if nasty-minded little bigots like the Silly beliefs 'John' were everywhere shouting from the rooftops to people to stay clear of those folk these cyber-bigots (and you seem to want to be one of them) didn't see eye-to-eye with. Would you have yourself declared the Appointer of Correctness? What have you done lately for a charity? What gives you the right to attempt to stop my efforts? Commenter X, even if I knew your real name I would never go to other... blogsites and diss you. So Commenter X, did you send them information from here to Silly beliefs for dissection there?'

     What sneering arrogance, what two-faced insolence. That behind our back Ring can cowardly label us 'fascist racist homophobes' and seemingly believe this is honourable behaviour, and yet when someone alerts us to this defamation, Ring views this relaying of his public comments as 'shameful and heinous behaviour', something he calls 'public thievery'. Ring says to the person he falsely accuses: 'even if I knew your real name I would never go to other... blogsites and diss you'. This statement just highlights Ring's stupidity and hypocrisy, with him claiming that he would never 'diss' someone behind their back, and yet this is exactly what he was doing, insulting and defaming us behind our backs. And he now has the blatant deceitfulness to pretend he would never act this way. He even adds more lies to the mix, talking of 'the Silly Beliefs anti-Ken Ring websites' — that's websites — plural. He wants people to believe that there is a whole collection of Silly Beliefs websites dedicated to his nonsense, rather than just a solitary one causing him all the bother. He also has the conceit to believe that Silly Beliefs is primarily an 'anti-Ken Ring website', that it is our raison d'être, our reason for existing. Don't fool yourself Ken. As silly as your beliefs are, you're just an insignificant minnow in a backwater pond. Given the choice, we would much rather turn people away from the stupidity that is religion than convince someone that you're a fraud.

     Note that Ring states: 'Whoever has been leaking what is here... needs to be brought to account because it amounts to public thievery' What nonsense, designed solely to threaten, as if real laws have been broken, as if his privacy has been invaded. The Yahoo site is a public forum and all comments are public. It's like accusing someone of theft who relates a newspaper article to a friend. You can't 'leak' information that is published in a public forum. Grow up Ken. If you're embarrassed over what you said, then stop saying it, if not, then be a man and defend your beliefs as we do.

     But in his false accusation Ring makes no attempt whatsoever to defend his criticism of us. He merely issues new insults: 'jackboot-kick-in-the-guts attack — nasty-minded little bigots — bullies — cyber-bigots'. The only correct statement he makes is that our exposure of his method is indeed an 'attempt to diminish my business and lessen potential interest', but then we've already clearly said that. At least something is getting through.

     Note that he also angrily demands an apology from Commenter X, and implies that no one else should relay his insults to us in the future. And yet Ring apparently has no inkling that perhaps it is us who deserve an apology. And if not an apology, at least the evidence as to why his apparent insults and lies are not defamation. But as usual, we expect we will only come across Ring blubbering behind our backs that we at Silly Beliefs are out to get him. Well, actually that bit is true.

     But it's not a full time vocation, merely an enjoyable hobby among many.

     P.S. As a reward for reading this far, we offer another of Ken Ring's many false claims for your amusement. We stumbled across it in his article 'Planets and Earthquakes', and it yet again highlights his ignorance of the very subject that he claims to be an expert in. Remember that knowing the correct size of the planets and their size relationship to the Sun and the Earth is crucial to his forecasting method. He writes:

     'Planets and Earthquakes
     The reader may have heard that planets have no effect on Earth. This bunch of untruths has been spread around by religious spokespeople through the ages, who wish to distance their congregations from the ancient astrology, which is still considered pagan. The planets very much affect the earth, indirectly, by having an effect on the Sun. Some planets are very large. If the Sun was a basketball the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn would be the size of grapeftuits, and the Earth would be, on that scale, the size of a peppercorn.'

     They say that a picture is worth a thousand words so rather than quote figures and ratios, we made the following diagrams. The top image shows the size relationship between a basketball and grapefruit. The bottom image shows the actual size relationship between the Sun and Jupiter (ignoring the fact that they aren't this close of course). No wonder Ring's predictions are always wrong when he has no idea what size Jupiter really is. He's probably consulting Astrology textbooks that were written centuries ago. And claiming to be a teacher of mathematics, if he has the correct figures, he should be able to calculate ratios better than the rest of us. He gives us no confidence that he can get the complex calculations correct when he obviously struggles with the simple ones.
360. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Jan, 2013

     Three readers have pointed us to an unusual media article, one that doesn't pander to the slack-jawed yokels in society. First reported in the Greymouth Star, then in the Star, a bi-weekly free paper in Christchurch, and now in the NZ Herald, it's great to see that at least some media have finally got on board with accurately investigating and reporting on the pseudoscientific claims of NZ's weather astrologer, the result being the article: 'Moon man' Ken Ring gets it wrong, and even a mention in a 'Herald on Sunday' editorial: 'It's a tough job predicting the future — just ask Ken Ring'.

     The article highlights how badly wrong Ring got his predictions regarding the South Island hydro lakes region and the West Coast, 'with no mention of the torrential downpours that caused severe flooding and slips which closed road and rail links last week'.

     We also note that in this article: 'Ken Ring's Christmas Day forecast', he predicted that 'Christmas Day will be fine and dry in nearly all areas of New Zealand, he says, while the new year opens wet for most'. Of course we now know that he was wrong again, completely failing to see the remnants of Cyclone Evan that struck Samoa and Fiji moving on to the North Island at Xmas.

     But look at how vague and non-committal that prediction was. If it rains where you are, then remember he didn't say it would be fine and dry everywhere, he said 'nearly all areas'. Unless you know what weather every other area in NZ received, you can still assume he was correct and you were in the unfortunate area he referred to.

     He also said in that article that 'The North Island bathes in sunshine for the first half of January...', but note that he has also said that 'the new year opens wet for most'. How can it be both wet and bathed in sunshine? This is why some morons think Ring can predict the weather, he makes contradictory forecasts that cover all the bases. No matter what happens he has 'predicted' it.

     In his article 'Summer outlook', Ring predicted that for 2013 'January is likely to be remembered as often dry and sunny with heat waves, and little rain except for some around the 19th and 28th for both islands'. He repeated this prediction in this article: 'Moon Man Ken Ring's summer predictions': 'Mr Ring predicts this summer will be drier than normal for most of the country'. So a great time to get outdoors and perhaps experience some of the country's tramping tracks, like the Milford Track. So why then did we see news reports of the Milford Track being closed due to torrential downpours, with trampers trapped in huts? Why were many New Year fireworks celebrations around the country ruined by rain? Whatever country or year Ring is predicting as 'often dry and sunny with heat waves, and little rain', it's not NZ in 2013.

     Far too often gullible reporters simply believe and slavishly report whatever Ken Ring feeds them, when even a cursory glance at his predictions and the real world, coupled with a basic high school education, would show him to be living in a fantasy world. The above 'Herald on Sunday' editorial is appropriately titled: 'Predicting the future, it's a game for mugs', and Ken Ring fits the profile perfectly. But we must remember that soothsayers like Ring only have a public profile and loyal fan base because generally the media either report his claims uncritically or simply ignore him. Either way the public, hearing nothing that debunks his claims, fall back on that old chestnut: Well maybe there's something to his predictions, since you never hear the experts challenging him.

     I was astounded to hear a news report on 'Radio NZ National' on the eve of the predicted Dec 21st 2012 armageddon. They interviewed an astronomer working for NASA who rubbished the prediction, but they then decided to get the view of a NZ expert. And who did they ask? Ken Ring!! To his credit he also rubbished the prediction, but what fool decided that a weather and earthquake astrologer was the expert that we NZers should consult? I was embarrassed to think that some of our neighbours, eg Oz, might think that when the going gets tough, NZers ring up an astrologer for advice on whether we should panic. How can we blame the public for thinking that Ken Ring is a respected expert when he is portrayed as the NZ version of a NASA scientist? Of all the real experts we have in NZ, to ignore them all and consult Ken Ring demonstrates true ignorance.

     And it's this ignorance that keeps Ring's little fantasy bubble intact. If people would just be a little more critical in viewing Ring's claims, he would soon go the way of fairies, pixies and evil trolls, with no one believing in him.

361. Comment by Graham, 11 Jan, 2013

     Hi John, I wouldn't worry too much about what Australia thinks of you, we have our own home grown gullible idiots here, also known as channel 7. Ken was doing his random guesses for 2013 on the Sunrise programme the other day http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/watch/85d6e9e0-2662-3984-89ff-4cf41feda9eb/2013-weather-predictions/ David Koch is the interviewer, highly knowledgeable when it comes to matters of finance, he would never allow a financial scam artist onto his program. But when it comes to matters of science, or in this case pseudoscience, he's just as vacuous as the rest of them. What bothers me most about this interview is he makes no attempt to point out that Ken's "theory" is not supported by the mainstream. He is presented as a "weather expert". For the general public there is no way of knowing that this guy has no credibility whatsoever, he could work for BoM for all they know. And his forecasts will quickly travel down the grapevine as "they said", people will forget that it was Ken Ring who made them.

     I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that he is already wrong. In the summary on his web page http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=440&type=home he says:

     "CYCLONES LOOKAHEAD

     Cyclones not expected in JANUARY until in the last few days of month..."

     As we speak Category 4 cyclone Narelle is nearing the Pilbara coast.

     Also, we've just suffered through a record breaking heat wave across the country, Ken didn't mention that. He did say there would be one in March:

     "Stand out event for the new year:

     Possible heat wave across country first week March (at or near 6th-7th)"

     So he knows he should mention things like that.

     No doubt channel 7 won't follow up on any of this, but it was good to see a few in the NZ media finally growing a brain.

362. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Jan, 2013

     Hi Graham, thanks for your comments. Yes Ken makes a big deal here of his celebrity spot on your Channel 7, I think he sees himself as equivalent to the likes of Tom Cruise or John Travolta. Of course since they're both deluded nutters too, only with them it's Scientology not astrology, so perhaps in one sense he's right.

     Of course I'm not surprised that his predictions for you guys are wrong as well, since as that computer saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out.

     And you're right about interviewers like David Koch. Why is it that normally intelligent, skeptical interviewers turn into lazy, gullible, star-struck morons when they do silly fluff pieces on nonsense topics such as weather astrologers, ghosts, UFO sightings etc? It seems to be a worldwide phenomena. Are they being forced by management to play the idiot for the sake of the slack-jawed yokels in society, or does their brain slip into neutral when they cover certain stories?

363. Comment by Rob, 01 Mar, 2013

     I had a spare bit of time at work, so decided to write the following piece based on our friend Ken's bull crap, especially in relation to the current summer.

     Ken Ring runs a website called PredictWeather, publishes an annual almanac with 12 months forecasts for multiple markets, and also republishes his articles on Yahoo's Website.

     In the past he has linked moon cycles and positions to earthquakes, claiming he predicted the Christchurch earthquakes. Ken also links the moon to significant weather events such as Hurricane Sandy which struck the east coast of America in 2012.

     Ken's method of predicting weather goes against mainstream methodologies, as he claims he can predict weather in relation to the phases and positioning of the moon.

     Ken has often derided agencies such as NIWA and the Metservice saying they have vested interests and receive Government funding when he as an independent who provides more accuracy in his almanac receives none from the Government.

     It's easy to mock Ken Ring, of which I think SKY TV is doing it brilliantly with their old man time commercial promoting MYSKY. (It may not have been intentional, but the old man with the hour glass looking disappointed when he says "boom" and the sun doesn't rise is a perfect fit), but let's judge him by his results.

     I have taken excerpts from Ken's predictions for summer and compare them to what actually is happening.

     On January 15, a post was published "Is Summer about to end?", this started with the first few paragraphs of

     "Sadly the run of dry weather could be about to end for Auckland this coming weekend, as northeasterlies prepare to take over after 18 January and then last for the rest of the month, bringing the potential for rain every few days.

     The ensuing northeasterly airstreams are then expected to continue off and on until around 18 February. There are other fine intervals for Auckland to come, such as 30 January to 4 February and the last week of February, but apart from a few days around 23 February these days may not be as warm."

     As an Aucklander, I can tell you this was so far from the reality of what happened, I would have been better consulting my cat and seeing whether it's cleaning behind its ears.

     Further on in the article he wrote

     "what is still in store for January? For Auckland, some heavy downpours are expected between 19-21 January. The lead-up to Anniversary Weekend may be dry but some rain is likely on that weekend itself, with more in eastern districts than in the west. Skies then clear about 29 January for about 6 days before rain returns to hamper Waitangi Day celebrations."

     Just want to say Auckland had a fantastic Waitangi day with no rain at all. Weather history can be checked on metservice for the past 30 days to verify this.

     And the last piece of bullshit in this article reads

     "Overall, February may be sunny and mild but rain in the first week breaks a dry spell. Around 8th, there may be heavy rains and floods for North Island and the West Coast of South Island but overall rain should be around average for both islands for that month"

     But no heavy rain or flooding in February for NZ, so what is the damn point of Ken having a forecast at all? It was so inaccurate and insulting, yet unfortunately his ramblings keep keeping published on Yahoo.

     His latest blog was published 26th Feb on Yahoo.

     Now apart from his failure to remotely recognise the inaccuracy of what he previously published, he has the insolence to pretend it's giving hope to the farmers with his headline "Hang on farmers, rain is coming".

     He now writes in this latest piece

     "In January Auckland only had 4 light rain days, but Wellington had 10 rain days, with over 60mm falling in the 4 days between 14th-18th, 26mm of that falling during one day."

     Now that's accurate, but doesn't closely match what he wrote in the earlier piece

     "For Auckland, some heavy downpours are expected between 19-21 January"

     With inaccuracy as bad as that, wouldn't you revaluate your methods if that was your prediction? And not claim you can predict the weather because everything is linked to the moon cycles?

     If Ken Ring admitted he got things wrong and changed his method and stopped pretending he has some powers outside the world of science, perhaps I would give him some slack, but he doesn't, and continues to write junk like "So the question being asked is whether or not a drought is imminent. The answer is no."

     See the farmers in Northland Ken Ring, see the farmers in the Waikato Ken Ring. See the farmers having to get rid of stock because they don't have enough feed because of drought conditions. I guess technically he might be right, the drought isn't imminent, because it's already here.

     I don't care if he convinces himself he is right, but when he publishes his poorly written inaccurate articles on public websites, he deserves to be called out for being the fraud and charlatan that he is.

     So the next time you have a friend/co-worker or acquaintance who says Ken Ring is accurate, remember the summer of 2013, and Ken's poor writing style, lack of accuracy and point out that it's not true. Your friend/acquaintance won't be too offended, as it's not like you are saying they are lying, but merely that Ken Ring is a fraud without a clue.

364. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2013

     Excellent work Rob, you're correct that Ring's astrological weather predictions bear no resemblance to reality. On the rare occasion that they may do so, it's all due to chance, a fluke. To confidently proclaim back in Feb: 'Hang on farmers, rain is coming', when according to his predictions it's already been, is beyond a joke. I fail to understand why farmers, at least according to Ring, swallow his lies and continue to support him. Is it similar to religion, where people desire simple explanations for a complicated world and refuse to think too deeply about what devious and/or stupid, deluded people tell them? Recognising Ring as a fraud is not rocket science, even my cat laughs at his predictions.

     Unfortunately, your wondering why Ring won't admit to blatant errors and embarrassing mistakes and why he won't wake up to the nonsense he's pushing is like me expecting to hear Pope Benedict admit that God doesn't exist, and that's actually why he's resigned. Ring, and Benedict, will never admit, at least not publicly, that there no evidence for their silly beliefs, both knowing that they must keep up the façade to maintain their lifestyle and celebrity.

     As we both know, Ring derides the likes of NIWA and the Metservice because they are his competition. Because of their success and public acceptance, it means that everyone who follows their forecasts will never buy his astrology books on the weather. Of course he claims that it's all an evil conspiracy to destroy his business, supported in part by Christians trying to suppress pagan superstition, but then all deluded nutters make similar conspiracy claims.

     Ahh yes, it is so easy to mock Ken Ring, and you're right that that advert where the natural world takes no notice of Old-Man-Time's proclamations is reminiscent of Ring's antics. The crucial difference being that Old-Man-Time realises that the world works differently to what he believed, and elects to watch a movie rather than continue with his efforts that obviously don't work. Ring has not yet realised that when he yells 'Rain' that neither the earth, the moon nor the atmosphere obey him. In times gone by, Ken's silly beliefs would have seen him safely ensconced in a padded room, wrapped securely in a straightjacket. In these enlightened times he unfortunately gets to run free and infect others that, being not too bright, easily succumb to the nonsense virus.

365. Comment by Gerald, 12 Mar, 2013

     Ken Ring also has a twitter account (https://twitter.com/kenringweather).

     It's priceless. He's unable to retrospectively change his tweets like his articles on his website. He blocks people like me who have been tweeting to point out his continuing stream of failed rain (and earthquake) predictions for this summer, but its great that even an idiot looking at his tweets over the last two months can see clearly what a complete load of rubbish his forecast are.

366. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Mar, 2013

     Thanks Gerald, I'd forgotten about his silly twittering. They really do expose his blatant lies, especially as the NI goes into official widespread drought conditions. As you've said, just look at some of his predictions:

     Jan 13
     Summer in Auckland may be about to end prematurely next weekend. But this was warned of back in October

     Wrong Ken, very wrong. And then he continues with this nonsense:

     Feb 6
     After the last week in February Auckland may not get another continuous week of dry weather until December

     Yeah right Ken. And look at his failed Waitangi Day prediction for rain:

     Jan 30
     A year ago, on 15 February 2012 we predicted THIS coming Waitangi Day would be wet in NI.

     But unfortunately for Ken it wasn't wet, and so he tweets after the fact that he actually knew it wouldn't be:

     Feb 6
     Waitangi Day lucky to escape rain. Our prediction made over a year ago (1-2 day error) has proven to be correct.

     Ken, with a straight face, would happily tell his clients that black was white and up was down if it would help sell his books.

     However I would disagree with your comment 'that even an idiot looking at his tweets over the last two months can see clearly what a complete load of rubbish his forecast are'. Ken hasn't, and as idiots go, they don't come more qualified.

367. Comment by Rob, 14 Mar, 2013

     The twerp just tweeted (https://twitter.com/kenringweather)

     "Mar 14
     Drought in NZ every 4-5 years. Remember 2007/8, 2000/01, 1997/98, 1992, 1987/88, 1982, 1976, 1972, all as bad as this one. Next one 2017/18"

     In total contrast to his Feb 26 article:

     "Hang on farmers, rain is coming".

     I also just noticed in his Yahoo Article he has the phrase:

     "So the question being asked is whether or not a drought is imminent. The answer is no."

     But on his own website he has edited the piece to:

     "So the question being asked is whether or not a lingering drought is imminent. The answer is no." (The italics are his)

     I guess he can't back track the Yahoo articles as easy as his own site...

     Is he trying to make it easy for us to mock him? I have distributed my piece to a few hundred people so far... who have passed it on as well.

     The more people that see his duplicity the better....

368. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Mar, 2013

     Ken's attempts to alter his failed predictions really are quite childish. That he thinks he might fool people is revealing of his intellect and that of his clients. A drought means: 'A long period of abnormally low rainfall, especially one that adversely affects growing or living conditions'. If dry conditions don't linger then it's not a drought. Questioning whether a drought is lingering is as silly as wondering if a death was fatal or the rain was wet.

     But this childish nonsense is typical from Ring, continually forced by reality to explain away his ongoing failures.

     To create and maintain a scam facts have to be suppressed, lies must be told, documents must be altered, science has to be discredited, failures have to be hidden, and morons with cash must be found. Ring understands this but struggles to master the skills required. A lie only succeeds if we don't see through it and hiding a mistake only works if it remains hidden. Fortunately Ring's lies and alterations are only too transparent to people prepared to think, to critically consider what he says, and to question whether astrological nonsense can foresee a tall, dark rain cloud in our future.

369. Comment by Jamie, 15 Mar, 2013

     This tweet is gold:

     "Mar 14
     Drought in NZ every 4-5 years. Remember 2007/8, 2000/01, 1997/98, 1992, 1987/88, 1982, 1976, 1972, all as bad as this one. Next one 2017/18"

     Calls himself a Mathematician?

     Classic!

370. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Mar, 2013

     Well spotted Jamie. Ring clearly claims droughts happen like clockwork 'every 4-5 years', but those droughts show varying gaps of 3, 4, 5 and 6 years. Very sloppy work from someone who taught maths to children. But Ring has no problem with fudging the figures to create patterns where there are none. And I wonder if they were similar NZ wide droughts, today's news reports say that this is the first time in 30 years that the entire NI has been in drought. So obviously they weren't 'all as bad as this one'.

     Of course this pattern, if it was real and well known to Ring, raises the obvious question: if he knew without doubt that one was due in 2013, then why, why, why didn't he predict it? Why did he confidently write that regarding whether we should be worried about a 2013 drought, 'The answer is no'. Why did he attempt to hide this drought from us, did he not want us to worry?

371. Comment by Miles, 20 Mar, 2013

     Hi, John. I have just been looking at Ring's Twitter page.

     It looks to me like he's forecasting only a few days ahead — I suspect he's using this site http://www.metvuw.com/ for his "forecasts." James started it when he was at Victoria Uni — looks like he's spun it off into a separate company since there's no mention (that I can find) on the site of Victoria Uni.

     I use metvuw for all my weather forecasts. Pretty reliable, and rather more an exercise in statistics than checking for damp stones or channelled Celts (or whatever).

372. Comment by Ron, 31 Mar, 2013

     What is already written here mostly says it all but decided to add a little more because Ken and his forecasts and expensive almanac infuriate me. Today his latest free (who would pay) newsletter arrived. All repeat words from last edition. Over the months I've taken notes and checked as many others surely do. I found he has been accurate in the overall synopsis of the individual months August 2012 to February 2013 then even that went wrong for March. Trouble is what use are these broad statements except to maybe a small minority. I live in Christchurch. For March Ken said for rain days in Canterbury "lots" 12 in all. Well, far as I'm aware CH.CH. is Canty. We had 2 rain days only, the 18th and 19th. Period. He mentioned flooding for Blenheim, Nelson/Motueka and various NI areas. No floods. Now I read him crowing about how accurate he was for summer but bypasses any in-depth recap about March. The big mystery here is why oh why do people buy his pricey book. Especially farmers, who I regard as intelligent business people. Based on Kens newsletters those books have to be full of erroneous data. Do prospective clients not indulge in some basic research before shelling out big bucks? More money than sense, or a fool and his money are soon parted as my grandmother always used to say. Do people see only an attractive almanac or website and believe this all has to be backed by a very intelligent, highly educated mind, so it has to be right? I'm simply left shaking my head frequently.

373. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Apr, 2013

     I think we both know the answer to your question Ron is no. People never do any basic research before handing over money for Ken Ring's book. It's the same as those morons that waste good money buying horoscopes and Bibles, any basic research would quickly reveal that these books are all based on ancient, superstitious nonsense and they would remain on the selves gathering dust. But as you say, people see Ring's Almanac (and horoscopes and Bibles) proudly displayed in respectable bookshops and naively assume that 'a very intelligent, highly educated mind' must be behind them. They couldn't be more wrong. As they say, the Bible was written by people that thought the earth was flat and that snakes and donkeys could talk. While Ring's work of fantasy has no talking animals, its science is just as flawed and its prophecies are just as silly as those in the Bible and in horoscopes. Like devious Christian apologists Ring cunningly tries to skirt around his many failed prophecies, and like you, I'm stunned at the number of people that blindly buy his lies. As the saying goes, 'There's a sucker born every minute', and Ring takes full advantage of this.

374. Comment by Rob, 05 Apr, 2013

     So tired of pointing out his crap, as must you be....

     And now March is over...

     Let's look at his prediction

     His prediction for March "March: Wet with heavy rains and floods." as published THURSDAY JANUARY 31,

     Sigh.... Will be great when his ramblings disappear...

375. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Apr, 2013

     Unfortunately Rob, like priests spouting religious nonsense, Ring and his deluded prophecies aren't going to disappear any day soon. One, his scam pays his bills and funds his lifestyle. Two, he craves the minor celebrity. And three, again like religious proponents, part of him desperately wishes that he lived in a simpler time, when it was naively believed that superstitious nonsense ruled the world, and that sacrificing a goat or checking which star sign the moon was in could predict the future.

     Like religion, where it's seldom that priests, ministers, pastors and nuns can be shown the error of their ways and their personal belief must die with them, the only sensible option is to educate their potential followers, those that are not yet completely blinded to the power of reason and evidence. Only when people giggle and treat Ring like the clown he used to be (and some would argue, still is), will his prophecies cease to be mentioned in civilised company. We cannot hope that Ring will willingly desist, like the annoying flu virus he will be with us for the near future, we must simply build up our defences against him and his nonsense, which includes ensuring that our family, friends and associates all get the critical thinking vaccine.

376. Comment by Ron, 06 Apr, 2013

     John, your words above — "his scam pays his bills and funds his lifestyle" — is the crux of my anger in my earlier message re. his clients. If Ken is getting the same proportional percentage of clients out of Australia and Ireland then his business has a very lucrative potential indeed. While most work in honest jobs or businesses, Ken continues in this scam and flourishes even though it has been proven over and over that his information is mostly wrong. Any real accuracies surely must be mainly coincidence, that's how I see it. Amazing isn't it? But that's life I guess. Ken has his nice little niche.

377. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Apr, 2013

     Yes Ron, like you I assume Ken is on to a good little money making scam. In the past Ken has claimed that his weather astrology business was struggling, that he was doing it to help people rather than make money, but I doubt that. Only a small proportion of the population will ever be silly enough to fall for his nonsense, but when you add Australia and Ireland to the mix, the extra numbers would easily make his business quite profitable. After all, his business was already a success when he targeted just NZ, so expanding to other larger countries can only mean higher sales.

     People that believe in Ring are no different to those that throw money at psychic mediums, you'll never convince true believers that they're being conned. As you say, that's life. There will always be people who can't think beyond the basics and people like Ring waiting in the shadows to rip them off.

378. Comment by Ian, 05 May, 2013

     I was astounded to hear Radio National consult Ken Ring on their rural programme. Even worse was a spokesperson for Federated Farmers stating he was "generally not far out". Needless to say, Ken grasped the opportunity.

     My estimation of Radio National, and the collective intelligence of farmers, have plummeted.

379. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 May, 2013

     Hi Ian, while Radio NZ National is generally of a higher standard than most other radio stations, unfortunately even they pander to the ignorant masses at times. If they really want to feature Ken Ring and his predictions, it should be on a program that critically examines his claims, his method and its real world results. But I guess if they did that witches would be demanding equal air time too, and where would the nonsense stop?

380. Comment by Dave, 15 May, 2013

     I love it when Ken tweets — (these being some from April — May) — "earthquake risks possibly today and next few days" and "earthquake risk period for the South Island may be 26 — 30 April"

     One "possibly", and one "may be". Uncertainty Ken — surely not? I could accept these comments in a horoscope — but from a person who claims he has predicted earthquakes it's not the standard I would expect.

     Come on Ken, give us a real prediction prior to the event — time, date, location.

381. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 May, 2013

     As we both know Dave, if it wasn't for Ring's monumental uncertainty in what he does, he wouldn't have a career in scamming. If he was compelled to remove guesses and wishy-washy terms from his soothsaying tweets — seriously — what would be left?

     Since horoscopes and Ring's predictions are both based on silly astrology, we can expect nothing but non-committal predictions such as: there may be an earthquake, you may meet a tall, dark stranger, or possibly you will win Lotto this week.

     The mystery for us is not why some turkey mired in superstitious nonsense can only offer silly guesses, it's why so many people follow his blatantly useless advice. There used to be talk that such things as TV was dumbing down society, and now Facebook and Twitter can no doubt be added to the list. Certainly something seems to be creating an increasing pool of idiots for people like Ring to rip-off.

382. Comment by Bob, 16 May, 2013

     I cannot understand Yahoo for allowing this man to put up articles on Climate Change denial and not allowing him to be challenged by comments. Yes there are a few idiots who abuse the comments option, but some readers may be influenced by his opinions and they need redressing by learned people, he does harm to the efforts to slow down man caused climate change, by saying everything is normal and natural. Before when I challenged him through comments, I realised there was little substance to the man's beliefs. His weather predictions are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I have no problem with him producing an almanac, for gardening notes and season reminders like many other almanac producers. Personally I would prefer a diary.

383. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 May, 2013

     In my view Bob, Yahoo allows Ring to publish his silly articles because they know they are controversial, and controversy will increase traffic to their site, and ultimately revenue. Like many in the media, profit is their primary concern, not education, hence they aren't concerned that the issues raised in his articles can't be debated. And Ring, also driven primarily by greed, denies the public the freedom to comment on his claims because he fears self-inflicted damage to his dubious reputation.

     He has slowly come to realise that he doesn't have the knowledge, intellect, patience, temperament or communication skills to debate the topics that he raises. He is terrified, based on considerable past experience, that he will soon lose his temper and start throwing vile insults at those that dare question his claims. Of course he quickly comes to regret these outbursts, not for what he said since he is quite sincere, but for the potential clients that he might have lost due to them not understanding that challenging his views is paramount to being a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi'. Which is one of the many things he has called me for having the arrogance of not joining his fan club. Ring lives in a fantasy world where he believes that the views of all ex-clowns should be revered and trusted implicitly, and distrusts any format where claims must be experimentally confirmed and the results are open to debate. He naively believes that since his astrological method is based on ancient 'knowledge', then it has clearly stood the test of time and should be accepted. Just like the ancient 'knowledge' that the world was flat and at the centre of a very small and young universe, and that God spent his days stuffing souls into babies.

     Ring should have the confidence in his method that scientists have in theirs and their willingness to passionately debate them, sometimes fiercely, but always with the desire to discover the truth. But Ring is not interested in testing his method, all his percentage claims of accuracy have been plucked out of midair by Ring, and he is not interested in discussing his method with those that don't already believe. Ring's move to prevent comments on his Yahoo articles is a clear sign that he doesn't want the public to look too closely behind the curtain or up his sleeves.

     As for Ring's gardening notes and season reminders in his almanac, I view them as being just as silly as his weather and earthquake predictions. His gardening advice is again based on astrology and also the bogus idea of biodynamics. Here is an example of his silly advice:

     'Gardening guide key: Rest period in the garden... it's a time when the moon is Void of Course, that is, travelling between one constellation (Zodiac sign) and another, and during this time the moon is deemed to have no energising power.'

     Really Ken? How does the moon know it's travelling between imaginary zodiac signs and that it should switch off its mystical 'energising power'? This is pure nonsense. Of course Ring does offer some common sense advice, eg it will probably be colder in winter than summer, it might even snow in the mountains, but do we really need to buy Ring's $50 almanac every year to seek the odd gem buried in the manure?
384. Comment by Brian, 20 May, 2013

     Nice to know you are still on Ken's case.

     I love this gem in his latest article. "Besides, pre-1990 glass thermometers couldn't accurately read tenths." Didn't he have his temperature taken when he was a child? As I recall, our home thermometer read 98.4°F quite accurately and that was way back in the 50s and 60s. I'm sure Edward Wilson would be spinning in his grave if he knew that his meticulously recorded temperature readings (all to tenths of a degree), during Scott's expedition were a waste of time.

     I know he won't, but Ken (and others) should take the time to view the recent documentary "Thin Ice". It looks at the science behind climate change and explains the role of CO2 quite well.

385. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 May, 2013

     Hi Brian. Yes, the pre-1990s were such primitive times, I'm surprised we could even make glass thermometers that worked at all. On reading Ken's articles I often wonder whether his site is one of those spoof sites — like The Onion — where the goal is humour, and only the truly gullible take the articles seriously. I mean, what are the odds that someone who can read and write and walk upright could unknowingly make so many simple errors in their articles?

     But the embarrassing fact is that while Ken is seen by many as a joke, his articles aren't meant to be. The real problem seems to be that Ken doesn't let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Inconvenient facts seem only to confuse both Ken and his clients, so they are dispensed with, and Ken weaves his own simple fantasy, comfortably devoid of complex science that might be revealed in documentaries like 'Thin Ice'.

386. Comment by Phil, 30 May, 2013

     A small article on moon/earthquakes which may be of interest:

     Looking for Patterns in Earthquake Data

387. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 May, 2013

     Interesting indeed Phil. Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, graphs earthquakes against moon phase and asks readers if we can see any patterns. I think I can see a clown around day 92 and the letter T at day 60, but apart from that, no. I'm sure Ken would see much more.

388. Comment by Mikaere, 31 May, 2013

     Hi John, re Phil's posting about earthquake predictions, that actually is a fascinating link because the graphic of the earthquakes is false — the author deliberately engineered a random distribution to see how people would view it. Several people 'bit' and saw patterns around earthquakes and the moon's phases.

     If you check out the author's link [here] which is several comments down the page, he talks about how people seem to have a need to see patterns and accept superstitions and false causality, just in case they may be correct, especially if there is no 'cost' in doing that. It actually explains to me, in some part, why people believe in daft explanations and embrace religious dogma...

389. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Jun, 2013

     Ahhh yes, the old 'problem' of seeing patterns when there are none. Thanks Mikaere for revealing that it was all a test, and since it was, I'm glad I didn't see any worrying patterns pop out.

     When Erik Klemetti looks at the real data, he concludes that 'it seems that something as simple as moon phases cannot be used to predict when and where an earthquake will occur'. He notes that some people see patterns because there are 'a lot of M4+ earthquakes — 3,776 to be exact. So that means each day, there are, on average, ~26 magnitude 4 or larger earthquakes on the planet. This means anyone who claims that we're likely to have an earthquake on Earth on a given day is right — we are (it just isn't very predictive)'.

     He also argues that there is stigma surrounding scientific earthquake prediction, noting that 'The problem lies in getting past the charlatans and snake oil dealers who give a bad name to research into predictive models. They claim to predict when earthquakes are likely to strike... and then claim that any earthquake that occurs validates their prediction'. He goes on to say that '...the cost in believing these people who don't put their work up to peer scrutiny and don't answer to when they are wrong (which is close to 98% of the time in most cases) can be high — it might prevent real research in earthquake or eruption prediction from occurring. Even beyond this more abstract reason, it can have real ramifications in public trust and preparedness in places where that unexpected earthquake occurs'.

     If you're reading this Ken, it means that you're hindering progress and endangering society. But I guess your business comes first. And since you've confessed to being a conspiracy theorist, you'll no doubt claim that this is just another attempt by the establishment to suppress the patterns that you see.

390. Comment by Ross, 05 Jun, 2013

     Sir, could it be right if they compare Ken Ring with our Lord Jesus Christ?

391. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Jun, 2013

     Hi Ross, we're not aware of anyone comparing Ken Ring to Jesus, but that said, we see nothing inherently wrong with comparing Ring to a character from a work of fiction, be it Jesus, Harry Potter or Papa Smurf. And what conclusion did this comparison that you speak of reach, that Ring's big predictions fail as often as those of Jesus?

392. Comment by Graham, 06 Jul, 2013

     Hi John, I realise most visitors to your site already realise that Ken Ring is a shonk, let's face it, most google searches these days are for affirmation rather than information. But just in case someone is reading this who is genuinely sitting on the fence and is wondering whether Ken Ring really can forecast the weather and that weather patterns repeat in the manner he says they do, then Ken has given us an opportunity to test just that. He has recently published for free all the weather charts he believes will occur during July. I downloaded them the other day from here http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=463&type=home (I recommend you get in quick, because as soon as Ken realises people are using it to check up on him he'll take it down). He also claims they are 90% accurate.

     The first thing you notice is that these charts are a complete rip from BOM: http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_bw.shtml, he's just pasted the date over the top. I don't know what year they are from but clearly they are winter charts, that is, they have all the features on them that you would expect during winter, cold fronts well north, strong winds in the Southern Ocean, inactive tropics etc. This is climate, it happens every year. However, in order to get the weather forecast right, these features need to be in the right place at the right time. Some features will match up by chance of course, but if this method works it should be true for all areas ie the overall pattern should be the same.

     Its easy to check against reality, BoM have the previous 6 days of charts here http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_col.shtml. Note these are analysis charts not forecast charts, so it's not Ken Ring vs BoM, its Ken Ring vs Reality. Personally I think this is a better test of the method than by checking worded forecasts against reality. They can be pretty wishy-washy and as you've noticed, Ken is pretty good at reinterpretation after the event.

     I've looked at all the charts up till today and it's fair to say none of the overall patterns have matched up. Just an eyeball of the 1 July comparison below shows the lack of correlation, but I've also marked in some of the more obvious errors. I was going to do the whole month but it's rather time consuming and its probably a good exercise for people to do themselves.

     

     

     1. KR: Deep low pressure system and broad trough over central Australia. Reality: Centre off a high pressure system a whopping 29hPa error.

     2. KR: Ridge. Reality: Trough.

     3. KR: No pressure gradient = light winds. Reality: Fresh easterly winds.

     4. KR: High pressure system extending over South Island, light NW winds. Reality: strong W'ly winds.

     5. KR: Ridge extending up the Qld coast. Reality: deep low pressure system 16hPa error.

     6. KR: Ridge. Reality: Cold front.

     UPDATE: 22 Jul 2013. Sorry to go on about this, I know we've already established that Ken's method doesn't work and I can confirm that I've checked all the charts so far this month and none have matched reality. But the one below is particularly special. It's essentially the opposite of reality, a negative or mirror image if you like. Every major weather system is the opposite of what it should be. He couldn't be more wrong.

     From east to west:

     KR: Deep Low near the North Island. Reality: High pressure system over NI

     KR: High pressure system near Tas and ridge to the south of NZ. Reality: Deep low near Tas and trough to the south of NZ.

     KR: High pressure over SE Australia. Reality: Low pressure over SE Australia

     KR: Cold front and trough over Western Australia. Reality: High pressure system over WA.

     KR: Ridge approaching WA from the west. Reality: Low pressure system and front approaching WA from the west.

     

     

     So not only does his method not work, there is absolutely no way that he doesn't realise this. Even someone who knows nothing about the weather can see these patterns don't match up, yet he passes himself off as a "weather expert".

393. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 Jul, 2013

     Hi Graham. Thanks for that info. I saw Ken was offering those maps but never looked at them. Frankly I don't know why he bothered, except perhaps to advertise to his list of suckers, I mean clients, that there were plenty more things that they could buy from him. It's potentially a dangerous ploy, since as you've shown, comparing his maps to the real world proves that his predictions are wildly out, no better than ignorant guesses. However I'm guessing that Ring believes that anyone that buys these isobaric maps will be the same sort of person that has already bought his almanac. And just as most religious people buy but never read their holy books, most Ring acolytes blindly believe him and would never think of doubting his forecasts and checking them with real world weather. Only people skeptical of Ring's pseudoscience claims actually analyse them, and we aren't stupid enough to buy his almanac in the first place.

     You're right that Ring does claim that these new maps are 'closer to 90% accurate'. He says that 'These maps represent a more accurate set than can be made available to the almanacs. Whereas the almanac maps are about 80-85% accurate, this set is closer to 90% accurate. Thank you for your purchase. We hope you find it useful'. Good ol' Ken eh, always out to make an extra dollar from his gullible clients. He puts the less accurate maps in his almanac, which customers purchase in the belief that they're getting maps of sufficient accuracy to reliably predict the weather day by day, then he expects them to purchase more accurate isobaric maps each month to give themselves a better chance of a real forecast. If his almanac is perfectly capable of predicting the weather, and this is the very claim on which he markets his almanac, then what extra benefit, except to Ring's bank account, would these new maps offer? If they do provide a better forecast then he is being dishonest in not using them in his almanac. He's knowingly selling an inferior product and expecting clients to pay again for the good maps.

     Furthermore, what does 'closer to 90% accurate' even mean? We've already shown that his usual claim of his methods being '80-85% accurate' is utterly bogus and has no substance. New maps which are a mere 3 or 4 percent more 'accurate' than a complete guess are not worth forking out more money for. Idiots that go on to buy his isobaric maps are like those suckers who keep sending money to Nigerian bank scammers, naively hoping that eventually things will work out as claimed. It's hard to feel sorry for stupid people who refuse to use that grey matter between their ears.

394. Comment by Doug, 09 Jul, 2013

     Ol' Ken has done it again in his last two blogs on Yahoo. Yahoot they should call it as it is quite a laugh.

     A week ago he wrote about our weather "There are two things trying to get through our insulating air barrier; heat from the sun during daylight hours and the cold from space at night." Ken’s physics is really bad if this is what he thinks happens — in the real world, heat energy moves from hot to cold (or warm to cold, or cold to colder). There is no such thing as "cold" except in the sense of "lack of heat". So cold cannot flow — or, as Ken puts it, "try to get through our insulating air barrier". What actually happens is that heat leaves the earth at night for colder space. Just some really basic poor grounding in what he is writing about.

     Today’s post is also crackers — showing up his lack of knowledge of junior High School chemistry. He has written "Climatologists then turned their thoughts to ocean acidification, but salt water is 100% alkaline. Bummer." Well, bummer to him. He does not understand the pH scale. pH is a measure the concentration of hydrogen ions in water. Acidic and alkaline refer to the ratio between hydrogen and hydroxide ions — in acid, hydrogen ions are at higher concentration that hydroxide ions, in alkaline (or basic) solutions, it is the reverse. In other words, it is a continuum. Adding more acid to an alkaline solution (like weakly alkaline seawater) can move it to less alkaline (which is the same as saying more acidic) conditions, because the acid is neutralising the base. Simple, basic chemistry but Ken Ring doesn’t understand this: he apparently thinks the two things are separate and exclusive — that is, if it is one it cannot be the other. But it can — it is like adding hot water to cold water — sooner or later the cold water will become warmer.

     This is amidst many other plainly silly statements, which it is tiresome to go into. It must be embarrassing to be so easily able to take money off even sillier people, as Ken does. His articles just make me laugh at him.

395. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Jul, 2013

     Thanks Doug. It is indeed laughable. Ken is nothing if not reliable. Maybe he doesn't realise that he's no longer working as a clown and thus doesn't need to make his readers laugh? His nonsense about the pH scale demonstrates (once again) his utterly dismal grasp of science. His claim that the oceans are '100% alkaline' isn't even slightly accurate. As this article notes — Ocean Becoming More Acidic, Potentially Threatening Marine Life — 'The pH scale measures how acidic or alkaline substances are. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is alkaline. The ocean's pH is currently about 8.1, down from 8.2 in the 18th century'. Ring's implication is that the oceans are as alkaline as they could be, which would be 14 on the pH scale, and yet they are only 8.1, just slightly above a neutral solution, and decreasing. The other nonsense you mention, of Ring believing that cold flows (rather than heat) is something one might have read in the Middle Ages. As usual he is talking bullshit, but he knows that the morons that buy his books and his claims will likely know even less about science than he does, and will be too busy watching reality TV or YouTube clips of piano playing cats to research what he claims.

     In Ring's two articles (here and here), he disingenuously states that 'Some think weather occurs at random, as if God spins a roulette wheel or throws an imaginary dice. Those who claim that weather is the function of chaos or bad luck... They claim weather is randomly changing day by day'. Yes some do think that, but only ignorant morons like him. We've already rubbished Ring's view that scientists view weather as random, but he's unable or unwilling to grasp that chaotic systems are deterministic. He claims that 'Absence of technology is why meteorologists and climatologists scorn longrange predictions beyond a week', which is also bullshit. They scorn longrange predictions because they know they are no better than guesses. And remember we're talking weather predictions here, not climate predictions, although Ring again doesn't understand the difference. If Ring could prove the accuracy of his longrange predictions then meteorologists, climatologists and the wider public would quickly embrace them, regardless of the absence of technology. This is typical conspiracy theorist talk on Ring's part, that meteorologists and climatologists are more interested in technology for its own sake than finding a prediction method that works.

     Ring condescendingly informs his readers that to understand they 'need to revisit what causes weather', and that it is all clearly explained 'according to lunar weather science'. Claiming that there is such a thing as 'lunar weather science' is as childish as talking about 'chipmunk weather science', where someone claims that the movement of chipmunks cause the weather. Evidently preaching from the Book of 'lunar weather science' and seemingly oblivious to the garbage he spouts, Ring informs us that 'One cannot heat water from above, because heat goes up and not down'. OK Ken, so what's that big yellow thing in the daytime sky doing, it seems to me to be heating things from above? Or is the Sun just an illusion created by scientists greedy for more climate research funding? Ken evidently believes the oceans are heated from below (think of a pot being heated), and by this logic the bottom of the oceans should be as hot as water at the surface, due to convection currents (look it up Ken). But this is not what we find, the ocean depths are very cold and the oceans are actually warmer at the surface and in areas that get more Sun. Are you really sure the Sun isn't involved Ken? Preaching from 'lunar weather science' Ring goes on to tell us that 'the sea is a good insulator, which is why it warms the land at night and keeps it cool by day'. Rubbish Ken, an insulator acts as a barrier, and if 'the sea is a good insulator' this would mean it would prevent heat (from below) from passing from the Earth through the sea to the air above. Yes, the sea does take longer to heat up and cool down than the land but this has nothing to do with it being an insulator. Continuing, Ring claims that 'Rain comes from the ocean and almost all of it falls back into the ocean. Daily underwater earthquakes and volcanoes generate deep sea currents which work to the surface and generate winds and waves'. So there you have it folks, rain comes from the ocean whereas I've been labouring under the falsehood that it comes from clouds, and evidently the wind only blows due to the action of underwater earthquakes and volcanoes. So shouldn't winds be extreme over the ocean and on the coast and minor or non-existent far inland? How does 'lunar weather science' explain a hurricane in Kansas? These claims from Ring are as pathetic as the Bible claiming that God keeps hail and snow in storehouses in the sky. But stupid people continue to blindly believe both Ring and the Bible.

     You can lead people to modern knowledge but you can't make them read and understand it. So Ring's pool of ignoramuses will keep buying his horoscopes, which is the technical name for 'lunar weather science'.

396. Comment by Anonymous, 12 Jul, 2013

     As he has demonstrated many, many times, Ken's understanding of basic physics is lamentably lacking. He has either never been taught, or ignores, that fact that heat can travel in three ways... i.e. convection, conduction and radiation. Sigh....

     Also, he has been told about thermo-haline circulation in the oceans many times in the past (before he got Yahoo to stop people commenting on his blogs), but conveniently overlooks this. I find it hard to believe that anyone takes what he writes seriously.

397. Comment by Jamie, 14 Jul, 2013

     Hi John, here's another example of bullshit from Ken:

     http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=455&type=home

     "July

     July will be a spectacular month for snow, with reports of road and school closures the subject of daily front page newspaper stories. The sun is furthest from earth in the first week of July, called aphelion, which itself is sufficient to cause a temperature drop."

     In fact, during aphelion the average temperature of the entire planet is actually a couple of degrees warmer than during perihelion.

     See here for a good explanation: http://spaceweather.com/glossary/aphelion.html

     Wrong again Ken.

398. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Jul, 2013

     Thanks Jamie, very interesting, I didn't know that the Earth was slightly warmer during aphelion, but then unlike some I'm not an expert. Of course Ken won't believe a word of that article because it talks of the Sun warming the atmosphere, sea and land. No mention of the Moon.

     By coincidence, just last night I read in 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow that the Earth's orbital distance from the Sun 'has a negligible effect on the temperature compared with the effect of its tilt'. Ken needs to read astronomy rather than astrology.

     For those that know that the Earth is closer to the Sun for part of the year and then further away, it is common sense to assume that it is summer when close and winter when far away. While this is true for us in the southern hemisphere it's the complete opposite for the northern hemisphere. For them, when the Earth is at it furthermost distance from the Sun (aphelion) it is actually their summer, and as the Earth moves closer to the Sun they move towards winter. The fact is that the main cause of our seasons is the tilt of the Earth's axis, not its varying distance from the Sun. Ring puts out apparently 'common sense' claims such as his above quote completely unaware that much of the way world appears to work does not make common sense. For example, common sense suggests that the world is flat and the Sun revolves around us. Ring knows that his scientifically illiterate clients will accept his 'common sense' claims over complex science.

399. Comment by Jamie, 03 Aug, 2013

     Hi John, yet another failure for the "Moon method".

     On 25th July, Ken tweeted:

     "Ireland weather: Only a handful of rain days or less expected now to mid September. August should stay in 20s, hotter around 7, 21, 29-31st."

     6 days later, the following was reported in the Irish Independent: Tornadoes may hit Ireland tomorrow — weather warning

     Did the Moon not tell Ken about this? Or did he choose to keep it to himself?

400. Comment by Jamie, 07 Aug, 2013

     Hi John, I noticed that Ken Ring's article "Severe winter ahead" has been recently removed from his homepage and relegated to the "articles" section of his website.

     I wonder why?

     Could it have something to do with this: "Fourth warmest July on record" — http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/216204/fourth-warmest-july-on-record

     Remember, in Ken's article posted back in April, he said of July:

     "July will be a spectacular month for snow, with reports of road and school closures the subject of daily front page newspaper stories. The sun is furthest from earth in the first week of July, called aphelion, which itself is sufficient to cause a temperature drop....."

     What a spectacular fail.
401. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 Aug, 2013

     I'm very surprised that Ken moved that "Severe winter ahead" article. As you say Jamie, it is spectacularly wrong. He couldn't have been more wrong if he tried. I'm surprised that he didn't just delete it, as he has done with other past articles that proved embarrassing.

     According to Ring's winter forecast, people like me in the deep south should be trudging around in snow shoes and shooing away penguins. I feel for his gullible clients who might have unnecessarily spent money or cancelled events based on his weather fantasy, but that's what you get for believing in astrological factors.

402. Comment by Jamie, 09 Aug, 2013

     Ken's Christchurch weather "opinions" are even more worthless than his Irish weather "opinions". His tweet on 30th July: "For NZ winter, 4 cold blasts are still to come. The next 10 days may be the coldest part of winter for Christchurch." Well, it's now 10 days later on the 9th August. In Christchurch we've had a very mild 10 days with hardly a frost, cold front, or rain-spell to speak of. Nothing at all compared to the nasty June we had.

     Ken should stick to his usual vague ramblings full of contradiction and cover-all-base nonsense. It's when he mentions specifics that he gets himself caught-out. Hey, that sounds familiar... sounds exactly like an Astrologer or Psychic Medium, don't you think?

403. Comment by Jamie, 17 Aug, 2013

     Hi John, here's a tweet from Ken back in July:

     'Snow for Christchurch is expected around 13-15 August. Until then only severe frosts are anticipated in the city'.

     I'm still waiting for the snow. In fact, I'm still waiting for the severe frosts!

     On the 15th August we had 19 degrees in Christchurch!

404. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Aug, 2013

     Thanks Jamie. I also note that yesterday Wellington had another earthquake (6.6M at Seddon) and yet there is no tweet from Ring warning people that it was coming. As is typical for astrologers, fortune tellers and psychics, Ring will now be scouring his articles, newsletters and dreams and will no doubt in the coming days issue a statement informing us which vague past statement of his can now in hindsight be interpreted as a clear warning. Ring always recognises his warnings after the fact, and naively believes this is just as valuable as issuing warnings before the event. Of course the quake was on Aug 16th, the last new moon was on Aug 7th and the next full moon is Aug 21st, so Ring will have to explain why it happened in between the new moon and full moon, since he tells us that 'Earthquakes cluster more around full moon times' and full moons are an 'earthquake breeder'.

405. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Aug, 2013

     It was revealed back in comment #400 that Ring had moved his prophetically entitled 'Severe winter ahead' article, presumably to limit how many people read it. In this article Ken Ring claimed that:

     'This coming winter may pose problems... The closer the moon is to the earth, the more extreme is the weather... which will set us up for a very cold July. Consequently mid-winter to spring should prove to be the coldest part of this year... from end of May to the third week in August. Very cold temperatures may break records at or near both mid July and mid August'.

     Unusually for Ring, he was right for once, records were broken, but for the wrong reasons. Rather than the severe winter Ring confidently predicted, yet another article again confirms that 'NZ records warmest winter and August'. We read that ' New Zealand has experienced one of the warmest winters since records began in the mid-19th century, a climate expert says. This year has brought on unseasonably warm temperatures during late July and throughout August...'

     Ring couldn't have got his prediction more wrong if he tried. Did the Moon deliberately set out to fool and embarrass Ring, have they had a falling out? Is there a rouge planet out there, Nibiru perhaps, upsetting 'the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' and throwing out his calculations? Did Ring forget to square the fish or carry the one?

     It's our opinion, our suggestion even, that predictions based on primitive superstitions will, more often than not, lead to claims that are, shall we say, very likely to contain high levels of male bovine excrement. Planning one's outdoor excursions and financial projections around these astrological conjectures is foolhardy at best, and mind-numbingly stupid at worst.

406. Comment by Jamie, 27 Aug, 2013

     Hi John, Ken's tweet on 30th July:
     "Ken Ring @kenringweather
     30 Jul

     For NZ winter, 4 cold blasts are still to come. The next 10 days may be the coldest part of winter for Christchurch.
     http://www.predictweather.com"

     So, there's 4 days left of winter and we haven't had any cold blasts since that tweet. Will there be a cold blast every day for the next 4 days?

407. Comment by Jamie, 27 Aug, 2013

     Hi John, in Ken's latest yahoo article "Pour yourself a beer for science", he writes "only half the points of this article may find the reader’s attention".

     Which got me thinking — What's half of zero?

408. Comment by Brian, 28 Aug, 2013

     Hi John. Once again Ken exposes his understanding of science, what scientists do and how they work as glaringly inadequate. Even his concept of infinity is flawed. Infinity simply means without end. Why need it be vast? Something may, in fact, be infinitely small.

     Then "calm represents potential energy". What? Something does not have potential energy unless it has the ability to do work. Some other forces needed here Ken.

     Another gem: "Yin and yang are in pairs, such as the moon and the sun". Since when have the sun and moon been considered a pair?

     Further on "We forget or ignore that for unusual weather episodes there are at least equal spaces between." I would contend that the spaces in between are far larger, which is what makes unusual weather episodes unusual...

     Ken continues to be hung up on cycles, but fails to recognize that any cycle has to start somewhere. The concept of "never before" is perfectly legitimate.

     And the next piece of nonsense "A glass of beer is a cloud inside out. One is a liquid with droplets of rising gas, the other a gas with droplets of falling liquid. They are not opposites because they are just two examples of gravity competing with buoyancy. Beer and clouds are part of the same science and arguably not yin yang."

     For a so-called weather expert Ken seems to not know what a cloud is. Or the difference between a droplet and a bubble. A cloud does contain droplets, but they are not falling — not unless they coalesce, in which case they are no longer a cloud, but drizzle or rain.

     Ken next chooses to trash the calculation of probabilities by scientists. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can work out that if there is a 10% chance of something happening, there is a 90% chance of it not happening. Stating as much is simply not necessary.

     Now, what is the difference between "severe" and "extreme"? Ken seems to think that severe can be measured and extreme can’t. I’m perfectly sure both are quite measurable. All one needs is a zero point. Oh, and the number of scientists who believe in global warming is also quite measurable, just as you could measure the number of people who own cell phones — simply count them.

     Ken goes on to say "Climatologists have three gambits: 1) Uncaring humans are causing extreme weather that can no longer be measured or predicted. 2) Extreme weather is wrecking the planet. 3) Money will fix it." I personally know and have worked with a number of climate scientists and these three gambits appear to exist in Ken’s mind only.

     In the next paragraph Ken once again calls the sun a planet — it isn’t Ken. Neither are magnetic storms and volcanoes weather.

     Also, weather requires an atmosphere. Mars and Mercury probably don’t have enough atmosphere to generate enough weather to shape anything. Ken seems to believe that weather causes volcanoes and mountain ranges. It does not.

     Finally, Ken says "we have just had a mild winter (mostly in the North Island)". We in the south have also had a very mild winter. But does this signify global warming? Not in itself, and no climate scientist would say so. However, if it constitutes one more data point in a trend, then maybe it does.

     Time to have another beer Ken....

409. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 Aug, 2013

     Ring waffles on about infinity, but the only thing that might be considered infinite concerning his latest piece of pseudoscience is his ignorance. Ring is so clearly incensed that intelligent, rational people around the world choose science over his nonsense that he must pretend that science 'has so forgotten what science used to be about, it is now employing religion'. In Ringworld science and religion are evidently walking around hand in hand. This claim from a man that spends an entire article rabbiting on about yin and yang — 'If yin/yang refers to everything, being out of yin/yang refers to nothing'. Of course anyone can write meaningless nonsense — If a tree falls in the forest and there is no duck there to see it, does it have life insurance? — but Ring makes a living out of it.

     The only thing I would disagree with you over Brian is that Ring shouldn't have another beer. He's obviously had too many already!

410. Comment by Mike, 30 Aug, 2013

     I see Ken Ring has gone a bit quiet again on Weatherzone after another brief appearance and me asking him a couple of simple questions. He took off and hasn't been back again for about 4 months.

411. Comment by Jamie, 01 Sep, 2013

     Hi John, in Ken's latest article posted today, 'White lies in winter', he quotes American scientist Richard Lindzen to back his climate scepticism.

     I laughed out loud when I read this on Lindzen's wikipedia page:

     "According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[61] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty."

     Richard thinks you're nutty, Ken!
412. Comment by Brian, 02 Sep, 2013

     Hi John, Ken just doesn’t learn does he? The opening sentences in his latest piece are lifted word for word from an article by Christopher Monckton, the infamous climate change denier. If Ken cared to look at the WFS’s own material he would have found that the WFS came to no such conclusion — in fact many of their members were diametrically opposed to what Monckton said.

     Oh, and for Ken's information, we have had an incredibly warm winter down here in the south... Nothing to do with models or predictions — just going outside and feeling the temperature.

413. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Sep, 2013

     Thanks Brian. So Ring has reverted to his old ways, stealing the work of others and passing it off as his own. He's quite despicable. And you're right, 'we have had an incredibly warm winter down here in the south'. But since Ring confidently predicted a severe winter he now has to create new lies, that regardless of what we all experienced, we were all deluded evidently. Writing from his bubble of ignorance in Auckland and sounding like some New Age nutter he tells us that winter happens when each of us decides it does: 'What months constitute winter has always been provincial. "Winter months" will never be universal in NZ due to our deep variation in latitudes and terrains... No region in NZ speaks for all...' What nonsense. Ring of all people should know that winter occurs at a specific time, based on the Earth's orbit, not when a certain low temperature or a specific rainfall is recorded. If it snows in December, does that mean it's still winter? It's like saying Easter can be whenever you want it to be. If you're too busy on the traditional weekend, no problem, Easter can be whenever you have time to worship the crucifixion and resurrection of the Easter Bunny. To hide his failures it's quite laughable the lengths that Ring goes to, inventing nonsensical notions that contradict both science and his own previous claims.

414. Comment by Zafir, 03 Sep, 2013

     The lack of critical thinking from Ring is astounding.

     His article 'White lies in winter' is totally irrelevant to climate change.

     He seems to think that some snow and a few cold snaps prove global warming a lie. It’s like saying 'it is cold today, where I am, therefore there is no global warming'.

     Weather and Climate are not the same thing. The weather in any given location at any given day, month or season is a data point. Climate is a long term pattern of weather. Making a big fuss about a data point shows a cherry picking of evidence to support a point of view.

     Taking long term view of datasets such as: ocean heat content, global surface temperature, icecap mass, summer sea ice extent or spring flowering dates and a trend starts to become clear.

     It’s not hard to access and plot the data, even Ken could do it.

     But no, According to Ken (quoting Christopher Monkton) "Actually it’s official. The scare is over. The World Federation of Scientists, at its annual seminars on planetary emergencies, has been advised by its own climate monitoring panel that global warming is no longer a planetary emergency".

     The idiot quoting the fool. I think I’ll stick to the data.

415. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Sep, 2013

     Rumour has it Zafir that Ring was once given a book on critical thinking but quickly swapped it for a book on astrology. Ring is adamant that 'Climate is weather is climate', and is incapable of grasping the complexities of 21st knowledge. He's like those people that argue that temperatures in Central Otago can vary between -5°C and 30°C, so why are climate scientists worried about a 2 or 4 degree increase in global temperature? He truly has the mind of a medieval astrologer.

416. Comment by Rob, 23 Sep, 2013

     Ken has been quiet on the yahoo blogs since early September, I hope it stays that way...

     But he still posts to his own navel gazing website.

     I had a bit of spare time at work, and decided to read Ken's latest ramblings:

     "The Christchurch Storm and the Moon"
     FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 13, 2013

     My favourite is:

     "The impressive pre-Maori stone circle at Mangonui Bluff, just out of Dargaville"

     ...Mangonui is on the East Coast famous for its fish and chips... but the stone circle just out of Dargaville is at Maunganui Bluff (Waitapu Valley).

417. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Sep, 2013

     Well Rob, as we all know, Ring has never been one to let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good fairytale. And note that he talks of it being a 'pre-Maori stone circle'. According to Ring the Maori weren't the first humans in NZ, and weren't intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the stone circles, they were just ignorant killers who rebelled against the circle builders. Ring has written previously that:

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

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

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

     'Archaeology tells us that many peoples may have come to Australia and then NZ as far back as 20,000 years..., for example Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chinese, Vikings, Spanish, Portugese...'

     The nonsense that Ring spouts to support his fantasies is quite laughable. How could the likes of the Vikings, Spanish and Portuguese etc have settled NZ 20,000 years ago when they didn't exist back then? Does Ring think that Spain and China have existed as countries for 20,000 years? Even worse, Ring claims that 'ancient maps, said to be 120 million years old have been recently discovered', which is back in the time of the dinosaurs and long before humans even evolved. His stupidity, and that of his fan club, knows no bounds.
     
418. Comment by Jamie, 29 Sep, 2013

     Hi John, I suspected we wouldn't be waiting long for Ken to post an article in response to this week's IPCC report...

     'Climate changers dancing in the streets'

     He says "It is as if NIWA was not in 2012 hauled by the Climate Science Coalition into a NZ court (well below the media radar), the charge being that NIWA had made up numbers to make their graphs look good." But conveniently leaves out the courts final decision in the case. The Climate Science Coalition lost and were forced to pay NIWAs court costs. Interestingly, when the case began in 2010, it was widely reported in the media. However, when the ruling came in September 2012, it was not so widely reported, with just a couple of small articles. Which seems to contradict Ken's point here, doesn't it?

     I had to chuckle when I saw him quote part of that famous quote by Abraham Lincoln, "You can always fool some of the people some of the time...". I think this is the very foundation of Ken's business model!

     Later he mentions the Japanese Tsunami, the relevancy of which escapes me.

     Finally, he says "You cannot be 95% certain nor 1% certain of something. It is like being a little bit hot, dead, wet, cannibalistic or Italian."

     I couldn't heIp but wonder if one can be "a little bit Astrologer"?

419. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 30 Sep, 2013

     Ring is committed to being a climate change denier since if the climate and hence the weather is indeed changing, whether it be due to human activities or natural causes or both, then it renders his astrological predictions worthless. Ring's predictions are based on the bogus assumption that the weather repeats like clockwork, and that nothing that nature or man does can disturb these cyclical patterns. However if the climate does change for whatever reason, then it will be futile, from an astrological perspective, to look to past weather events to predict future weather events, since the world will have changed. It would be a little like predicting the career options of a 21st century teenager based on what were the career options of an 18th century teenager. If the climate changes, then Ring is out of business overnight. Thus, regardless of what he truly believes, he must be seen as an outspoken climate change denier for his business to make sense to his clients.

     Typical of Ring, his article is just smoke and mirrors, rabbiting on about irrelevant points, making false implications and misleading his readers. Note that he says that 'First, we might ask how climate change, whatever that is and by whose definition, is measured...'. He expresses the concern that his readers might not understand what climate change is exactly, and yet makes no effort to explain what it is. Likewise he also says that 'First we should identify what a "scientist" is...', but again, after identifying the need to explain, Ring provides no explanation. Ring is like a Catholic priest speaking to his gullible flock in Latin, they're not supposed to understand him, they just have to trust him. And give him money and support.

420. Comment by Bob, 03 Oct, 2013

     Uh ! I see you are letting Mr Ring comment/challenge on your site, which is more than he dare let his own readers do in the Yahoo opinion page. His latest article is truly pathetic, the premise that Climate Change concerned people are dancing in the street and celebrating disasters, that the IPCC AR5 WG1 report was made solely for media attention and winning of minds (by 600+ specialists from many differing countries), rather than to educate/advise/ help world governments and leaders with policies. That there are no measuring tools (has he not heard of the 3000+ argo floats scattered around our globe, that descend to 2000 feet, which is deep water. He is showing his own ignorance and stubborn blindfolded vision of the world in this article. Climate gate is long disproved, the court case he talks of was lost by the cranks who tries to disprove the temperature rise. He is talking of naughty scientists with a special computer program, all computer programs are special and do the specific task they were designed for. Why an earth does yahoo persist with this guy, it must be for comedic relief, because this article is so bad. I put a link to it in an online climate group and everyone could not stop laughing at this guy. His denial is so behind the expert manipulators, not only that there is a typo in his piece 'The time frame is the "last half cenrury"'.

421. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Oct, 2013

     Hi Bob. Yes we let Ring comment on our site since unlike him, we believe free speech and open debate means just that. Ring talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk, he's far too fearful to let people point out obvious flaws in his articles. He's slowly learnt over the years that he's incapable of defending his silly beliefs. Like some deluded Messiah he expects his followers to simply have faith and blindly accept what he claims. And unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who match Ring in his ignorance and swallow his brand of nonsense, including some at Yahoo.

422. Comment by Bob, 08 Oct, 2013

     New opinion by Ken Ring titled 'Looking after — the planet?', so seems he has given up with his bread and butter long term weather predictions and is focused on bad mouthing Climate Science and the IPCC (his arch enemy). I cannot reply directly on Yahoo to his venomous attacks that Yahoo generously allows him anymore. He starts off in this opinion "Ranjendra Pachauri, Climate Science Head of the U.N. IPPC, announced in Australia in February this year that 'there has been no Global Warming for 17 years'. Now the same IPCC say global warming is currently accelerating faster than ever before and man is to blame. So who is right, him or himself?" totally wrong Mr Ring — it was David Rose of the Daily Mail assisted by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech who started that rumour, that has been disproved by the 3000 argo measuring buoys spread around our globe. The Guardian quotes the good Ranjendra Pachauri 'The chairman of the United Nations' climate panel has dismissed a contrarian spoiler campaign targeting next week's blockbuster report, saying "rational people" will be convinced by the science on September 19th. Ken Ring I no longer consider you rational in any way, you are beyond belief, I could pull apart every other point you tried to convey, but the first sentence is pathetic enough, who and why are you trying to convince, I am very suspicious?

423. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Oct, 2013

     My favourite quote from his article is this: 'If the reader is confused then join the club. There seems to be no system separating fact from fantasy'. Here is Ring admitting that he is genuinely confused and unable to separate fact from fantasy. Of course we've known this for years, but it is good to see that Ring is finally recognising and coming to terms with his inability to understand the science behind the real world.

     He hasn't given up his weather predictions either. He was featured on TV1's 'Seven Sharp' last night defending his nonsense. Unfortunately it was a superficial fluff piece and while it did show Ring to be often wrong, it failed to challenge his nonsense claims and ended almost praising his efforts.

424. Comment by Brian, 09 Oct, 2013

     Hi John. One again Ken copies and pastes the same tired old skeptical rhetoric without doing any research himself. He (or whoever he copied his latest blog from) labours under one of the major misconceptions most skeptics do — that global warming has stopped. Unfortunately for them, it hasn't. Thanks in large part to the record-setting El Niño of 1997-98, the year 1998 was the warmest year globally in the 20th century. While it is true that since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades. The global average from 2000-09 exceeds the average for 1990-99, which in turn was warmer than 1980-89. And the average for the past three years (2010-12) tops the 2000-09 average. For continental USA, 2012 was the warmest since records began. This, of course is all global surface temperature. Ocean temperatures have shown no such corresponding plateau and continue their inexorable rise. I ask Ken three basic questions here (since he will not allow debate on his site):

     1. Have the oceans continued to warm at a pretty much constant rate over the past 20 years? The answer is yes.

     2. Is the specific heat capacity of water much higher than that of the air? Once again, yes.

     3. Do the oceans play a significant role in determining climate? Yes.

     I will leave Ken to connect the dots.

     As usual, Ken pops other tidbits into his article that are completely irrelevant and tries to pass them off as some proof that what he says is correct. For example the references to an Antarctic expedition being called off due to excessive crevassing. This is no proof whatsoever of global cooling. It could in fact be a sign of ice movement — something one might expect if icesheets or ice shelves were moving more quickly than usual, as in a period of ice melt. Then, his reference to electricity companies making record profits. I'd like to see him produce some evidence that the increased profits are due to people needing to heat their homes more. As I have pointed out before, we have had an exceptionally mild winter in the south this year and have hardly had to use our heaters. Maybe Ken is feeling the cold more as he gets older?

425. Comment by Baldrick the Third, 09 Oct, 2013

     'Seven Sharp' on TVNZ is in the prime time viewing window. I've watched it a few times (once a month) just to see if it has improved since its inception. It hasn't. It's awful. It's a nothingness. That was confirmed to me once again last night by the pathetic item they had on the weather. Ken was also on it. He said that when he predicts wind he means "real wind". I changed channels at that point because it became too technical for me — what is "real wind"?

426. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Oct, 2013

     I agree Baldrick, 'Seven Sharp' is rubbish. I only watched after being told that Ring was going to be on, and I enjoy seeing him squirm. I watched the entire piece, and the following exchange was the bit about the wind that exposed holes in your education and made your brain hurt. The journalist that interviewed Ring was Heather du Plessis-Allan.

     Heather: 'It's not conventional to be quite as hit and miss as Ken is. I mean, the shortest day of this year in Wellington should have been 'Cloudy, wet and windy', and the book doesn't say... [flash to TV1 news bulletin for June 21st] "Many have been mopping up after being battered by the most powerful storm to hit the capital in decades. Huge seas up to 15 metres high, bigger than those in the Wahine storm 45 years ago"'.

     Ring: 'No, no, but hang on... umm... when it says... showers and windy, well, you've got a storm, you know, because...'

     Heather: 'Oh but showers and windy could just mean a little bit of shower and a little bit of wind as well...'

     Ring: 'No... look if I say windy then it is significant wind'.

     Here we see one of Ken's many faults at play, his inability to admit to an error in forecasting. Even though he says elsewhere that he doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy, if you highlight a suspect prediction Ring will without fail argue that he was right rather than simply admit that occasionally he gets it wrong. No matter how ridiculous and childish his defence is in reinterpreting an obviously failed prediction, Ring will never publicly admit that he got it wrong. Even though he comes across as unbelievably foolish in attempting to defend obvious mistakes, he clearly lacks the confidence and integrity to admit to even a single failure.

     However, if we accept that the mention of 'showers and windy' in Ring's horoscope book is Ring speak for 'well, you've got a storm', and a very powerful storm at that which will break records and wreak havoc, then we should see powerful storms all over the country hundreds of times each year. This is because Ring predicts showers and wind untold times throughout the year. And I think we could argue that these two don't have to occur together to produce a powerful storm, since you can have destructive winds without showers, which means we should see powerful storms even if Ring just says 'windy'. So if we accept Ring's argument, that he got it right for Wellington on June 21st, then we have to ask, using this new interpretation of what 'showers and windy' really means, why he got it so wrong hundreds of other times? Ring in his stupidity would rather claim one very dubious success at the expense of hundreds of embarrassing failures. Think about it, every time Ring predicts 'showers and windy' in the future and we don't get a powerful storm then he has failed. No longer can 'showers and windy' mean what normal people take that to mean. One wonders why Ring, if he expects a powerful storm, can't simply say that? And what about showers and wind that aren't at storm strength, what is his code word for these weather events? When Ring says sunny does this mean showers in Ring speak? Why can't he just use the same definition of words that his readers use?

     Of course the answer is that he does if his prediction matches reality. Only when it fails miserably does he claim that black is white and drizzle means hurricane. Ring is so insecure that he can't admit to a failed prediction and so stupid that he can't see how pathetic his arguments are. Of course we all know that there are, and always have been, people out there that struggle to understand the world and end up constructing fantasies to explain it, but that such a moron can gain publicity and some respectability on prime time TV is worrying. No doubt some of the show's producers and journalists thought it was all a big joke at Ring's expense, but if they're not going to analyse Ring's silly beliefs seriously, then all they do is promote him to an audience that are as gullible and ignorant as he is.

427. Comment by Tony, 13 Oct, 2013

     I used to communicate with Ken Ring on a forum and quickly learned he paints his predictions (that apparently aren't predictions) with a very broad brush indeed. He predicted snow for Christchurch on a particular day and when I asked him why it wasn't snowing he replied — "When I say "snow" it can mean sleet, hail or even cold rain". When I pointed out that it was a cloudless, fine day he didn't bother to reply. He also predicted — "A severe quake for the Christchurch area". When I asked him to define "Christchurch area" he replied that it could be "The Canterbury province, the South Island, or even anywhere in New Zealand".

     To be fair to Ring however, all people making paranormal predictions/claims are as broad and vague as he is in my experience. The real puzzle is why so many people believe them.

428. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Oct, 2013

     As you say Tony, why do people believe morons like Ring? Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to live or work with Ken Ring, who would be continually explaining away his failures with excuses such as: 'Surely you must know by now that when I say "Wednesday" it can mean Saturday, New York or even pizza with extra anchovies'. If a child told a teacher that snow and cold rain were the same thing and that Auckland was in the Christchurch area they would immediately be told how wrong they were, and if they continued to spout such nonsense, placed in the corner under a dunce's hat. That said, I'm continually amazed at how many adults there are out there that clearly can't think critically, and can't grasp how devious people like Ring are ripping them off. In the distant past the wolves would have weeded out these imbeciles but today modern society protects them from their own stupidity. The gene pool is fast filling up with low IQ clients for sharks like Ring to prey on.

429. Comment by Jamie, 18 Oct, 2013

     Hi John, on the 11th October, Ken tweeted:

     Ken Ring @kenringweather 11 Oct
     Jim Hickey said these are equinoctial winds. Equinox was 3 weeks ago.
     These winds are due to yesterday's lunar perigee. The moon as usual.

     Well, here we are 7 days later and much of the country is still experiencing strong winds. Calling NASA! — Has the moon stopped in it's orbit?
430. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 19 Oct, 2013

     Jamie, NASA has replied and said that the Moon is still moving in its orbit as usual, it is in fact Ring that is confounding predictions and radiating even more nonsense than usual. But of course Ring has long implied that the Moon's astrological effects can ignore the laws of physics. When you employ magic you can make winds hang around to do your bidding for as long as you like.

431. Comment by Ron, 15 Nov, 2013

     Hi John, was checking through Ken Ring's upcoming global events page for Nov. to Feb. These are all weather related except for one. Dec. 2. He has poor old Christchurch singled out again for a quake risk. Mag. 5.9 precisely. 5.9 is a very strong and damaging shake. Isn't this amazing, after saying they are supposedly moving away from here to Marlborough, Wellington and Wairarapa. Plus he is meant to shut up regarding quakes.

     Another entry he states monsoon rains in Malaya late Dec. Does he not realise Malaya became Malaysia way back in 1963 and that their east coast does become monsoonal from Dec. to Feb/Mar.?

     Had to laugh at mention of a one day rain event in Dargaville area that he says could affect kumaras. I'm sure kumaras growing up there are used to rain and enjoy it, especially a 1 dayer. Don't worry Ken the good ol kumaras will be fine. At the risk of boring regular readers I must say he got October largely wrong as well. His predictions of a wet, cold, wintry, cloudy month was wrong for most of NZ. Exposed western and southern areas came near but here in Christchurch it was more a windy changeable month as usual, but was quite dry and mild due to endless norwesters. Very dry also in Auckland, Hamilton,Tauranga, Hawkes Bay.

     Has anybody noticed in Ken's monthly newsletter breakdown by dates that weirdly on the 11th of each month, always the 11th, he will start by saying "the next 4 weeks will be....... whatever". He will then contradict this further on, many times. The enigma here is why that date does not vary and why that date anyway.

     Plus in his continuing efforts to refute global warming/climate change and the fact he was so terribly wrong about our 2013 winter he was again trying to tell us the winter was very cold despite you and several of us SI writers saying it was much milder. Winter is winter regardless. Of course it will get cold in June, July and August at times, wouldn't it? Would I spend our money on Ken's almanacs/predictions/possibilities/opinions based on my observations of his track record? You know the answer John.

432. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Nov, 2013

     Good ol' Ken, he never disappoints. Contradicting past predictions, breaking past promises, inventing new nonsense, scaring naïve clients and threatening defenceless kumaras. Regarding Malaysia, as you'll know Ron, Ring is not interested in checking his facts in the slightest. Ignorant groupies are expected to blindly believe his fantasies and the claims he makes to support them. That's how his scam works. Xmas is coming up and I guess numerous morons will be wasting their money on giving his Alamanc as a gift. But then Xmas is a time where many people embrace manifest nonsense, eg Santa Claus and the mythical birth of Jesus, the son of a god. If you're silly enough to believe in Santa and/or Jesus, I guess it's not much of a leap to swallow Ring's claim that astrologers can predict the weather and earthquakes.

433. Comment by Doug, 18 Nov, 2013

     Ken shows his absolute ignorance of the evidence behind what he pontificates about, yet again. After four or five blessed weeks of nothing from him on the Yahoo site, he has gushed forth again in his hurriedly removed article "Plenty of Oil" — it is still viewable by clicking on past blogs. In this profound display of ignorance he postulates that hydrocarbons are sucked up from the soil by plants and incorporated into organic matter as a consequence, then buried and so forms fossil fuel reservoirs. Since, as he claims, the hydrocarbons are in the soil and are continuously being incorporated into plants, there cannot ever be a shortage of oil, as there is no shortage of soil.

     He knows about photosynthesis, as he discusses it in the article — as being the source of oxygen and sucking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But he doesn't make the link — that the carbon in the carbon dioxide is the carbon in the hydrocarbons, and that is the ultimate source of all hydrocarbons. No, according to Ken, hydrocarbons just are, they exist in soils, they were created with the Earth, and they just are. But he has strayed into an area of my expertise — and we have demonstrated conclusively, over an over again that yes, soils contain hydrocarbons and yes, they come from atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that oil (actually coal) is derived from those plants. This is an isotopically and chemically consistent explanation. There is no evidence that the hydrocarbons are from some other source.

     There was a theory around a while ago that oil comes from deep in the crust or mantle. Its main proponent was Thomas Gold and he had the Germans drill deep into the crust in non-sedimentary rock, to demonstrate this. He found hydrocarbons alright — minute amounts, and entirely due to contamination from his drilling equipment. Nothing worthwhile came from this test of his theory except to show that he was wrong. It seems that Ken has picked up some of this and, as he does, adopted it as truth, and promulgated it as if it was actually supported by the science. It isn't.

     He also states "Oil fields are commonly found around volcanism, because the explosive pressures of eruptions can and do fuse hydrocarbons together." Once again he is wrong. Oil forms from buried organic matter (mostly marine algae and the like, not plants from soils, Ken) over time. It takes time and heat for the chemical reactions to occur and the oil to seep into reservoirs. But too much heat accelerates this process and actually splits up the hydrocarbons into the lighter gases (not fusing them together as Ken claims), and eventually it becomes carbon dioxide again if in place long enough. This is why our oil/gas reservoirs around Mt Taranaki are carbon dioxide-rich gas reservoirs rather than oil reservoirs. The presence of volcanic heat destroys petroleum; it does not create it. Most of the huge petroleum reservoirs are (or were) in decidedly non-volcanic areas — Texas, the Arabian Peninsula, etc. Volcanism and areas of increased heat flow in the crust actually compromise and complicate any petroleum resources found there.

     Oh well, Ken digs himself holes using his tools of self-deception and stupidity, but rather than realise his errors and climb out, he just keeps on digging. Unfortunately, the gullible fall in with him.

434. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Nov, 2013

     Hi Doug. An excellent rebuttal of Ring's article. And I suspect Ring's resurfacing is all about raising his profile in the run up to Xmas, marketing his almanac as Xmas gifts. Note his article finished by reminding readers that he is 'author of the Weather Almanacs for 2013 and 2014'.

     The nonsense that Ring comes out with at times truly astounds me, and this is speaking as someone who has witnessed Ring make some utterly ridiculous and unsupportable claims. As for Ring's hydrocarbon fantasy, he is a self-confessed conspiracy theorist, and his many conspiracy theories do all tie into his astrology business, arguing that scientists and historians have got it all wrong, and that he alone can be trusted. However, Ring struggles to understand that you need more than just an idea, you need strong evidence to support that idea. It's perfectly respectable to surmise that hydrocarbons might have been formed without the help of living organisms, that distant planets and stars might influence events here on Earth, or that there is a pot of gold at the end of rainbows, but to be accepted as fact these ideas have to be verified by reason and evidence. Incapable of pointing us to the evidence, Ring manufactures claims that have the appearance of evidence but are as fictional as that pot of gold. In this respect he is no different to deluded people that argue that gods, ghosts and Bigfoot are all real. Ignorant and ill-informed people wedded to a fantasy that they try to push on gullible people through bogus claims.

     I believe Ring is probably ignorant of how wrong he often is, he apparently does just scribble down whatever nonsense pops into his head that appears to support his latest fantasy. I'll give Ring the benefit of the doubt and label him pathetically incompetent, in that he seems to make no attempt to check his claims, the alternative would be that he knowingly constructs lies. But while this ignorant naivety and incompetence may explain if not excuse the many errors of fact in his articles, it does not explain his willingness to knowingly repeat errors of fact. This is instead explained by a ploy often employed by the religious, and especially Creationists. They are infamous for pushing some falsehood, then after being shown they are wrong and begrudgingly accepting this, they quickly return to repeating the same nonsense to a new and uninformed audience. Using claims that they now know are false, they still deliberately and deviously repeat them to win over converts to their beliefs. Ring's behaviour is identical. He has been shown on numerous occasions by numerous people that some claim he has made is clearly false, and yet in later articles or debates with new people he will again make the same claims, with no hint that others have shown them to be false, or even debatable.

     Take for example his claim in his 'Plenty of Oil' article that 'The oceans are crammed with vegetation, which is why 99.7% of earth's total biomass is underwater.' Ring has already been shown here that this claim is false, when he made the identical 99.7% claim in an article back in August. To repeat, regarding the global biomass, this Wikipedia article notes that: 'Apart from bacteria, the total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C. Most of this biomass is found on land, with only 5 to 10 billion tonnes C found in the oceans'. How could he get it so wrong? We're not talking a few percentage points, the reality is the complete opposite to what Ring claims! The first time he could claim ignorance, but to now repeat this claim knowing it to be false is nothing but devious.

     In his oil article Ring claims that 'Geology says vegetation did not evolve until 4.5 million years ago, which is only within the last 0.1% of earth's geological history'. What utter rubbish, typical of Ring's nonsense and ignorance. Where does he get this crap from, 'The Big Boy's Book of Medieval Beliefs', or is it all concocted between his ears? As this Wikipedia article — 'Evolutionary history of plants' — notes: 'Land plants evolved from chlorophyte algae, perhaps as early as 510 million years ago; some molecular estimates place their origin even earlier, as much as 630 million years ago'. Following Ring's claim, since dinosaurs died out over 60 million years before vegetation evolved, are all those familiar images of dinosaurs eating plants wrong? What did the herbivorous dinosaurs eat? Since Ring has asserted elsewhere that humans may have been living in societies at least 120 million years ago (yes, with those same dinosaurs), does that mean that dinner back then was all steak and no salad? Judging by Ring's embarrassing grasp of science and Earth's ancient history, he must logically argue yes.

     And he makes more erroneous claims too, minor but wrong nevertheless. Ring's articles are usually peppered with such errors, and while some might argue that they are by themselves inconsequential, taken as a whole they all serve to help convince gullible and ill-informed readers that Ring's assertions make sense, that he knows what he's talking about. 'Arable land exists all over the globe with vegetation even in deserts and at the poles', states Ring. 'Arable land' means fit for cultivation, and true deserts and the poles are not places fit for cultivation. And while there is land at the south pole, there is no land, arable or otherwise, at the north pole, it's all ice. Ring notes that 'Plant species like plankton, algae and mosses...', but algae are not plants, and only some plankton are plants, the rest are animals. Then he informs readers that 'Anadarko has great onshore assets in the US Gulf of Mexico...', but wouldn't it be offshore rather than onshore if it was in the Gulf of Mexico?

     Finally, he states that 'Volcanism is part of the ceaseless ongoing interactivity between the earth's crust and the hot magna beneath'. Apart from the fact that it should be magma and not magna, I actually agree with this statement. I mention it because, while it is scientifically correct, it is not what Ring in past articles has claimed to be the cause of volcanic eruptions. He claims to be able to predict eruptions because they are caused by the Moon. For example, he has said that 'We are not able to stop new moons, and new moons will induce volcanoes...' Of course he does confuse the issue by claiming elsewhere that 'The solar wind... may be responsible for all forms of extreme weather, including earthquakes and volcanoes'. So is it the Moon, the solar wind or the natural interaction between the Earth's crust and the magma that causes volcanic eruptions? Ring certainly covers all his bases. Ring is completely willing to say anything that might sway his readers to his fantasy, even if it contradicts what he has claimed elsewhere.

     But of course the ethics of all this don't concern Ring, he has a business to run, profits to make, and since it's all based on astrology, a pseudoscience, then the truth must not just take a back seat, it must be left behind all together, running screaming down the driveway.

435. Comment by Jamie, 23 Nov, 2013

     Hi John, a couple of weeks ago Ring became active on youtube again after a 3 year hiatus.

     http://www.youtube.com/user/MrKenringweatherman

     He announced the "kick-off of the new series" on his website and via twitter.

     His video blogs are averaging around 50-100 views each. My own video shared with family and friends of "Daughter learning to ride bike" has more hits than that.

     If this is any indication of how business is doing in Ringworld, then perhaps Ken will be dusting off his clown shoes again soon.

436. Comment by Rob, 24 Nov, 2013

     Wow... Those videos Ken are posting on youtube are fantastic... Fantastically bad... I increased his hit count by one as well.

     I feel like I should buy him a tripod, as the hand held selfie video is terrible, both in angles and whitebalance settings on the cameras...

     Like you, I read his oil article as well, but that's not my field of expertise, so had made no comment, but based on the feedback from Doug and yourself, it's definately not Ken's either.

     I guess if I was reading his piece properly though, I also would have picked up the 4.5 million year mistake about when vegetation first came about. He must have meant 450 million, but getting it that wrong, with the difference from now until 4.5 million years ago, being 100 times less than the actual time, is just lazy or stupid (note: these are not mutually exclusive with the weather wizard).

     Maybe we should be grateful with his branching out from just weather to earthquakes to oil... as the more fields Ken tries to cover with his make believe facts..., the more people will realise he is a fraud.

437. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Nov, 2013

     Regarding when vegetation evolved Rob, I too initially thought that it was probably just a careless typo on Ring's part, that he actually meant 450 million years rather than 4.5 million, but you'll notice that he also claims that vegetation has only been around for 'the last 0.1% of earth's geological history'. To reach this value from Earth's age of 4.5 billion years Ring must have used 4.5 million in his calculations, so it's not just a typo in his article. To first think up this number, then use it in a calculation and then type it in his article gave Ring three opportunities to realise it was wrong, and not just wrong, but two orders of magnitude wrong. As I said, Ring erroneously but sincerely claims that humans lived in societies at least 120 million years ago, so how could he not realise that vegetation must have been around longer than 4.5 million years? You're right that being lazy or stupid are not mutually exclusive with the weather wizard. It certainly is laziness (and arrogance) on Ring's part to never check his claims, and stupidity to think that they make sense.

     Every time Ring expounds on some topic he does indeed reveal his ignorance, meaning that intelligent people will quickly see him as a fraud, but those that are as gullible and ill-informed as he is will be gift wrapping his Almanac to give to cousin Billy-Bob as I write this. Like David Koresh at Waco and Jim Jones at Jonestown, Ring has his deluded and devout followers, and little can be done to convince them that their weather wizard is spouting nonsense.

438. Comment by Dave, 28 Nov, 2013

     Ron says — (Comment # 431, 15 November post) (well spotted Ron)

     Hi John, Was checking through Ken Ring's upcoming global events page for Nov. to Feb. These are all weather related except for one. Dec. 2. He has poor old Christchurch singled out again for a quake risk. Mag. 5.9 precisely. 5.9 is a very strong and damaging shake. Isn't this amazing, after saying they are supposedly moving away from here to Marlborough, Wellington and Wairarapa. Plus he is meant to shut up regarding quakes.

     Thanks Ron, I didn't see this and I checked his twitter and here it is:

     2013 2 Dec: Earthquake risk 5.9 Christchurch, drought farewelled in E Australia (Twitter — 1 November 2013)

     Um really? An earthquake risk in Christchurch? Gee. Interestingly Ken has documented a specific magnitude (5.9 earthquake) on a specific date (2 December). But only as a "risk". So my question is, why can he be so specific on a date and magnitude as a "risk"? His preciseness implies more than risk? He is very exact isn't he? This is a prediction isn't it? It seems he has finally nailed down a specific magnitude, a specific date and a specific location — but only as a risk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Well Ken we know there is always a "risk" of a good shake in Christchurch, and Marlborough and Wellington and Hawkes Bay etc. Tell us why 5.9 and why not a 4.2 risk, tell us why 2 December and not 5 December, tell us why Christchurch and not Masterton? Why not just state that "there is a risk of an earthquake in Christchurch on the 2nd December". That would kind of leave it open ended. This time you have committed yourself publicly.

     Oh well. What if it happened? Ken would look good. I don't suppose there is anyone intelligent enough in the media to get Ken out in the open, and ask him the same questions before the 2 December and not after. Because if he is right science can learn — if he is wrong nothing changes.

439. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 29 Nov, 2013

     Hi Dave, as you correctly note, identifying a risk is merely expressing the possibility of something harmful happening, it is an uncertainty, and yet Ring provides no real indication as to what the risk of this specific quake happening actually is.

     When Ring's very precise prediction fails, and I predict it will, Ring will then, after the fact, angrily insist that he never suggested that his predicted quake would happen, merely that there was a risk that it might, and a very, very low risk as it turns out. But as you say Dave, there is always a risk that harmful things such as quakes in Christchurch will happen, just as there is a risk that I will be abducted by aliens tonight. The question is what probability figure should we put on that risk? Is it a high, medium or low risk?

     By being so specific, Ring implies that the probability of his predicted quake is very high, almost certain even. But Ring can provide no good reasons — beyond his silly astrological nonsense — as to why he can be so precise, why there is apparently no risk of a quake the day before or outside Christchurch or of a different magnitude. You ask Ring how he can be so exact Dave, but I guarantee he will give no rational answer. After all, superstition and reason don't cohabitate happily. If you receive any answer at all, it will be a lie wrapped up in an insult. For example, note Ring's mention of a very precise 5.9 magnitude in his prediction, and yet in the past Ring has bitterly insisted that:

     'I did not predict a magnitude, I NEVER do, unlike GNS... Please don't misquote me all the time. It only makes you look like what you really are, a petty liar out to denigrate me and mislead people from the truth of what occurred...'

     'I have repeatedly said I never suggest magnitudes, only the timing'.

     As I've said before, Ring makes up so many lies and falsehoods, tells so many different stories, that he forgets what he has told people, and is forever making a fool of himself when his lies are exposed.

     You also ask an important question that needs to be addressed. What if the quake actually happened? Firstly, for Ring's prediction to be correct, the quake must strike on Dec 2, with no similar quakes before or after, it must only impact Christchurch, and it must be exactly magnitude 5.9, not 5.0 or even 5.8. The odds of all three factors occurring must be extremely low. By carefully noting a specific date, location and magnitude Ring is ruling out quakes on other days, locations and magnitudes. A quake outside Christchurch or on a different day or of a different magnitude doesn't count since there are always earthquakes happening somewhere other than Christchurch on other days and of different magnitudes. Only Ring is childish enough to believe that saying an earthquake might happen somewhere at some time is a useful prediction, and let's not forget that that is exactly what most of his predictions predict.

     Let's remember that following untold attempts over many years, and contrary to his bogus claims, Ring has not predicted one single earthquake. Thousands happened in Christchurch and he missed them all. Name any major quake worldwide and Ring wasn't aware that it was coming. When some did strike, such as the massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in 2011, he was on record as predicting that none were due.

     If this Christchurch quake were to happen exactly as he predicts, any rational person should suspect that, based on his embarrassing record of past failures, and the pseudoscience that informs his prediction, it was an utter fluke. One lucky guess should not lead people to assume that Ring knows something about earthquakes that scientists don't. For Ring to prove that he did indeed have sound reasons for making this prediction, he needs to explain those reasons and most importantly he needs to consistently and reliably make many more predictions that all come true. A key component of scientific evidence is repeatability, that the outcomes of predictions do indeed always happen as predicted. If someone claiming to be an experienced pilot or surgeon made 100 attempts to land a plane or perform an operation respectively, and only succeeded once, any sane person would immediately realise that they don't know what they're doing, and were lying about being knowledgeable and experienced. Clearly their single safe landing or successful operation out of a hundred attempts was a fluke. Ring's failure rate is far worse than this, he's 100 for 100. If he was now to rack up an apparent success with his Christchurch prediction, this would be nothing but Ring's fluke occurring. It would give no support whatsoever to Ring's astrological physics or even suggest that the scientific community should take him seriously. Only the gullible and scientifically illiterate would believe that Ring had made anything but a lucky guess.

     UPDATE: Dec 2nd has come and gone, and surprise, surprise, Christchurch wasn't hit by a sizable earthquake. Once again my prediction — that nothing would happen and Ring is spouting nonsense — is validated, and Ring's silly astrological prediction is added to his embarrassingly monumental list of failures. That some people can continue to have such misguided confidence in someone who fails so consistently and publicly is truly mystifying. Just as evolution created predators and their prey, it has seemingly also created scammers and their stupid followers.

440. Comment by Ron, 06 Dec, 2013

     Hello John. I really need to say some things regarding writings in Ken Ring's December newsletter but firstly a quake mention. As I previously pointed out Ken told us a 5.9 was headed our way (Christchurch) for Dec.2. As we all know this did not happen. What did happen was a 3.4 under the port hills on Dec. 5. Not felt in many suburbs. Today a 4.7 hit near Seddon. Dave, on this site, wrote a well worded challenge to Ken, as John and I have often done, but you never answer Ken. You insult us by your rude silence Ken. And please don't, if you answer, tell us you got it spot on because you damn well didn't. We had a small flurry of quakes in Nov., 2 over mag. 4 but none were even close to your moon connections.

     Regarding some of the latest newsletter entries. Firstly another mention of kumaras under threat in Northland on the 29th. Ken, kumaras are a sub-tropical or tropical crop. In such areas around the world it can rain a lot. They have been grown up north successfully for yonks just as it has rained plenty for the same period. They need a sandy or well drained loam. Farmers know this.

     Now I quote these entries. Dec. 25 "Rain starts in Rangitata and may flood in about 2 weeks". Eh!! What does that mean? The Rangitata is a largish Canterbury river. Can Ken enlighten me on this. Is the rain going to fall only on that river, or maybe its headwaters, only. Why will it take 2 wks to flood. Is this supposed 2 wks of continuous rain going to start off light then get heavier. It is a major fishing river so many of us would love you to elucidate.

     This one is a real doozey. Jan 1-2 "Possible high temps January in Henderson, Te Puke, Levin, East Taratahi...." Where the hell is Taratahi and east as well. So precise. Is it a township or a NZ city suburb? Henderson is a western Auckland suburb only, but is it going to be hot there only, along with East Taratahi. What about adjacent suburbs like Ken's Titirangi. Will it be much cooler in these other suburbs? Should the good people of Henderson move to other areas for their outdoor activities to escape the heat. Under the heading of Jan 1-2 Ken immediately refers to these hot enclaves under the whole umbrella of "January". Confused?

     Dec 21-23 Warns of high river levels, quotes some major Otago rivers could overflow including the Waitaki. The Waitaki has several lakes and dams. It is controlled. Even in past very heavy rain periods I have never heard of it overflowing except maybe at the mouth.

     It saddens me some of this stuff written at primary school levels is coming from an ex. school teacher with other proclaimed qualifications and is in the business of giving out or selling important information. I wish Ken could get his act together.

441. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Dec, 2013

     As you say Ron, the nonsense in Ring's newsletters sounds like something a kid would write, hastily written with obvious mistakes and making silly claims that even your average intelligent adult should be skeptical of. Unfortunately Ring has got his act together, and that is to sell weather predictions based on astrology to gullible peasants. Thus Ring will remain silent, no apology or excuse will be forthcoming regarding his most recent failure to predict an earthquake in Christchurch, since Ring relies on his clients remaining ignorant of his ongoing failures.

442. Comment by Dave, 06 Dec, 2013

     Your update is quite right John. The nearest quake to Christchurch on the 2nd December was 21 k's away at Weedons — a frightening 1.84 magnitude. The biggest was 2.3. mag — 48 k's out in Pegasus Bay. And you know even allowing for the plus or minus 3 days either side of the 2 December — there were just small shakes — aftershock stuff. Indeed, another failure. Mind you by word of mouth his 5.9 opinion, prediction, possibility, risk period — whatever it was — spread down here and no doubt some would have been alarmed by it. Absolutely unnecessary and the guy just doesn't learn.

     That brings me to my point. I can't find if Ken, who has a following in Ireland and Australia - has ever identified any earthquake risks for those countries, or made any predictions, opinions etc. If not — why not? They do have earthquakes albeit mainly non newsworthy "little tiddlers". Do we know if Ken opinions about earthquakes in those countries? If he has I can't find any references. I would not like to think that the moon, planetary alignments, sun spots and all other celestial earthquake causing factors are selectively ignoring other countries and picking on poor old Christchurch.

443. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Dec, 2013

     Hi Dave. I don't know if Ring has made any quake predictions for Ireland and Australia, but based on his silly claims as to what causes quakes he should have. Let's recall these comments from Ring:

     'Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa. Earthquakes cause "rubbing together" of tectonic plates, not vice versa'.

     'The solar wind... may be responsible for... earthquakes and volcanoes'.

     Ring's earthquake theories are based on the gravitational influence between the Earth and the Moon (and the planets, or perhaps the solar wind influence etc), and have nothing to do with plate tectonics. Ring doesn't believe quakes are caused by plate movement. Scientific opinion however asserts that plate movement is the major cause of earthquakes. While rare, we know that earthquakes can occur far away from tectonic plate boundaries. They're known as intraplate quakes and are utterly unpredictable. However the great majority of quakes occur in regions near plate boundaries. Thus based on scientific theory, quakes should be rare in certain countries, such as Australia, and forecasters there can concentrate on weather predictions and forget about making quake predictions. But since Ring follows astrological theory and not scientific theory, then every place on Earth, every country, should equally be at risk of a major earthquake. The Moon passes over the entire Earth so quakes should be happening everywhere, not just in certain regions. So why isn't Ring terrifying the Aussies and the Irish with his predictions of some killer quake that could be one 'for the history books'?

     If Ring is correct, then he needs to explain, as you say Dave, why the Moon and other celestial factors are 'selectively ignoring other countries and picking on poor old Christchurch'. It all seems rather personal doesn't it, but I guess that's astrology for you. That Ring is more than happy to traumatise Cantabrians over and over again, knowing full well that many are suffering psychologically from the past quakes, shows how irrational, sanctimonious, insensitive and uncaring the man is. But then history has shown that many people have done great harm to their fellows all under some ignorant, superstitious belief that they are really helping them.

444. Comment by Gerald, 11 Dec, 2013

     Thought you might be interested to know Ring's allowing comments on his nonsensical Yahoo articles again: 'Teach your children well'. Funny how comments from "supporters" always seem to read like they're from Ken himself.

445. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Dec, 2013

     Thanks Gerald. Brian has also since noted that 'I see Ken (or more likely, Yahoo) has finally been brave enough to open his blog up to comments once again. Should be interesting'. However when I looked the 'Comments' section was, like Bigfoot, nowhere in sight. Perhaps it was just a software glitch that Ring has since noticed and rectified? Or perhaps rational and challenging questions and observations reminded Ring why he deleted the 'Comments' section the last time, and he quickly switched it off again?

     I read his article, and that's a few minutes I can never get back. In his final paragraph he argues that we must 'refuse to allow true science to become suppressed or misrepresented by remaining open-minded', which all sounds quite reasonable, but in his first paragraph he states authoritatively that 'Compared to what there has already been in the past, there... [will be] no burning of the planet to a cinder in the next 25 billion years'. Ignoring his climate change denials and the threat from the Big Bad Wolf (which according to Ring thankfully hasn't increased, or decreased, so I'll still be locking my door tonight), true science as accepted at present does actually believe that the Earth will indeed be burnt to a cinder, so to speak, within the next 25 billion years, actually more like 5 billion years. I'm talking of the death of the Sun here. Ring's article does just what he claims we shouldn't put up with, and that is to allow true science to be suppressed or misrepresented. He's his own worse enemy.

     Ring finishes by saying that 'We can become Robin Hood, Flash Gordon, Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman anytime we choose... Knowing that, we can all again live happy lives and encourage our children to dance and sing as they used to do'. Ahhh... if only it were that easy, if dancing around the back lawn in a silly costume was all it took to lead a happy life. Maybe if we all lived in Ringworld.

446. Comment by Ron, 17 Dec, 2013

     The gullibility and illogic of many people never ceases to amaze me. I refer, of course, to the subject of Ken Ring and his clients/followers. There are plenty of comments about him and his ideas out there, some gush praise, most do not.

     I was shocked to learn that Ring has predicted weather way out to the year 2020 for the Gisborne City Council. Did he do this gratis or was there a handsome sum of ratepayers money involved? Another shocker was in 2008 it was reported that Ring's almanac was listed in the top 10 non-fiction best sellers in NZ. Sort of leaves it wide open for an obvious comment, doesn't it? A few yrs ago a former olympian who became an events organisor was quoted as saying he consults Ken before any big event and has never had to cancel. A couple of typical, both anonymous, clients commented as I quote here: "There is nothing wrong with Kens accuracy. We have bought his book every year and swear by it." And: "I love the weather almanac. There is no other book that gives us long range predictions that work. I follow the gardening tips and note huge improvements in production". His followers are in denial surely. Pseudoscience seems alive and well here.

     Ring has apparently fielded interest in his work from the likes of Japan, UK and the USA. The whole thing mystifies me. We are talking about a guy who is blatantly ignorant about earth and atmospheric science, who spouts science sounding dialogue, etc that makes him appear an expert. Sane, rational people actually accept and follow him. One scientific mind tried to explain this enigma thus "that cognitive and hindsight bias are possible reasons so many believe his predictions" (quakes or weather).

     At the launch of his 2008 almanac Ring came out with a rather ridiculous statement "that we all have a responsibility to create global warming, life likes warmth". What irks me is too many give Ken credibility ie radio, tv, mags, newspapers, etc. Somehow all these things, often negative, actually favour his brand. He milks all opportunities cunningly to his good, especially, I believe, the infamous Campbell interview. He gained emotional support from all over NZ. One typical response that tends to support what I'm saying read in part "Ken appears calm, rational and blessed with an admirable amount of self-control and quiet dignity". As I've written before on this site when I dared to dispute his quake predictions some mths after the Sept 2010 shocker, I did not see such qualities. I got nastiness and told not to write to him again. The facts remain; endless, ongoing, abysmal failures. The track record is truly awful. Long term rainfall stats for any area would be a more reliable predictor than Ken. Many checks and audits by learned people have revealed an average 25-35% success rate, not 85%. A metservice employee wrote a piece in NZ Geographic analysing his 2005 predictions. It stated that out of 40 weather occurrences only 1 matched Ring's predictions. In true Ring style he accused the writer of bullying.

     I cannot find latest data on his sales suggesting maybe plenty of repeat business happening behind the scenes. A lucrative little earner? Must be. He has to pay assistants, marketing mgr, a business consultant and sales executive that I'm aware of. Scams pay. No wonder they are popular.

447. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Dec, 2013

     Speaking of Ken Ring's abject failures Ron, in the future instead of people saying things go together like salt and pepper or bacon and eggs, it's probable that Kiwis will say that they go together like failures and Ken Ring.

     Let's also remind people, because Ring certainly won't, that for December 2013 he marshalled all his spooky astrological powers and predicted a powerful 5.9 magnitude earthquake would very likely hit Christchurch on Dec 2. As for the rest of NZ, Ring could see no quake threats worth warning us about. Of course, embarrassingly for Ring and astrology, no quake hit Christchurch, but a severe 6.2 M earthquake did later strike Southland on Dec 16, at 1.10am. It was centred 125 km west of Tuatapere and 25km deep, and felt as far north as Wellington.

     Ring must be extremely peeved that quakes won't happen when and where he says they will. Of course astrologers are working with flawed beliefs and astrological data that are thousands of years old and grossly out of date, so it's not surprising to modern minds that their predictions consistently fail. After all they are little better than interpreting the entrails of a slaughtered chicken.

     And if Ring recommended the chicken prediction method you would at least be able to eat the chicken afterwards, so it wouldn't be a complete loss, whereas once you realise his expensive Almanac has failed, it has no other uses. You can't even use it as a paperweight as this would expose your gullibility to friends and associates, and lower your standing in society.

448. Comment by Mark, 21 Dec, 2013

     I have been following Ken for 7 years and where I live in Australia his forecasts are very accurate if you use them as the general theme of the year as opposed to day to day predictions.

     I farm in a broad acre area and use his predictions as a guide as to when to expect a break and when the season is likely to cut out, his predictions thru the drought/dry years and last two years have been spot on for my area in Vic. I look forward to his book every year and have several mates also buying his book and it works for us.

449. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Dec, 2013

     Sorry Mark, but we are not convinced. You assert that Ring's 'forecasts are very accurate if you use them as the general theme of the year as opposed to day to day predictions', but I know people that make the identical claim for their horoscope books. Your response is typical, you ignore the many times he gets it wrong, and grasp the odd lucky guess, arguing that some real knowledge can be gained from his predictions as long as we don't look too closely. You are deliberately ignoring his many failures, and are suggesting that we would see him as a success if we likewise would only ignore his failures. That's like saying we can believe Hitler won the war if we only ignore the embarrassing bit where he lost.

     Your comments are a clear admission that his 'day to day predictions' are crap and not to be trusted. And let's remember that Ring actively promotes his almanac on providing 'Accurate weather predictions for any day a year in advance... Essential for farmers, fishermen... Knowing the weather helps to plan for our major events like weddings and corporate events'. I've just finished listening to him on the radio giving three wedding day forecasts. You appear to be saying that he is misleading everyone that is buying his book on the false belief that he can make accurate day to day predictions, but you don't seem to be concerned by this. After 7 years of experience you have learnt apparently where Ring can be trusted and where he should be ignored, but I suspect that all you have discovered is that climate follows a general theme each year. You shouldn't need to waste money on Ring's almanac to grasp the difference between summer and winter, or their timing.

     You say that Ring's broad predictions for the 'last two years have been spot on', but since you say you've been following him for seven years, the clear inference is that he must have failed for the other five years. Getting his prediction right only two years out of seven is a dismal success rate, and suggests that it was nothing but a lucky guess. You and your mates will no doubt continue to buy his book, while ignoring much of it as bullshit, and believe it works for you, just as others buy their horoscope book every year, believing that it works for them. The only difference is that Ring doesn't have the guts to put the word astrology on his.

450. Comment by Anonymous, 22 Dec, 2013

     I suspect that Mark is Ken Ring. He writes with Ken's lack of awareness that what he is actually writing makes him appear to be a fool. So Ken got it approximately right two years out of seven — wow. How extraordinary — especially as Ken's forecasts reduce to that it will be warmer in summer than in winter.

451. Comment by Jamie, 22 Dec, 2013

     Hi John, it's interesting to note that on the 18th December Ken tweets:

     Ken Ring @kenringweather 18 Dec
     The 500+ page Weather Almanac for Australia for 2014 by Ken Ring is now available.
     Please click here to order..."

     Then a couple of days later, you receive an email from "Mark". An Australian fan of Ring's. Let me guess, was "Mark's" email address sent with "Yahoo", "Hotmail", or "gmail"?
452. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Dec, 2013

     My guess is that "Mark" is genuine and not Ken in drag. I think anyone attempting to support Ring will appear foolish and Ring-like, since it is the very nature of what they believe in. An intelligent Ring supporter is probably an oxymoron.

453. Comment by Tony, 22 Dec, 2013

     Hi John. Not sure if you're already aware but Ken Ring had an hour on the "Karyn and Andrew" show on Tuesday night on RadioLIVE. He made heaps of specific weather predictions and said some hilariously ridiculous things. According to Ring, animals you might see walking past your door have been in New Zealand for millions of years. I don't have the time (or inclination) to document his predictions and contact Karyn and Andrew next year to expose his failures but it would be good if someone did this. A recording of the show can be found via — http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Audio.aspx (Select: Tuesday 17th Dec, 9pm — 10pm. Ken fronts at 9:08pm)

     Had a bit of spare time so listened to the interview again. Here's how it starts:

     Ken Ring predicts (summarised): "24th to 27th Dec: Heavy downpours", "28th & 29th Dec: Fine, good days", "then it's going to pour again", "4th Jan to 20th Jan: Solid dry weather".

     Karyn Hay: "Is that right across the country?"

     Ken Ring: "Mostly, yep ... yep ... I mean, ... ya know, I don't have the weather for every single little valley and hollow and town, but generally the trend is that"

     Ken Ring then changes his earlier "4th Jan to 20th Jan: Solid dry weather", to "6th Jan to 16/17th Jan at least, there's going to be a good two weeks of fine weather" (five days have disappeared).

     Ken Ring: "Some places like Central Plateau will get a little bit around the middle of Jan and Canterbury will get something around the middle of Jan, 13th or so, but most of us after the 4th will have a good week at least" (no longer "A good two weeks of fine weather". Another week disappears).

     It then turns into pure humour.

454. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Dec, 2013

     Thanks Tony, I've finally found time to listen to Ring's fantasy hour. As you say, Ring said it would be fine everywhere until Xmas Eve and then rain until the 28 Dec. As I write this it's Xmas Eve and we've had rain for the last four days, so he's failed already.

     Ignoring the many weather forecasts he provided for 2014, I'm going to look at some of the nonsense he regaled his hosts and listeners with. The callers were all fans and while there were a couple of skeptical texts received, they were given short shrift. Explaining his weather prediction method, but carefully neglecting to mention its astrological foundation, Ring trotted out one of his favourite silly phrases: 'The sun provides the heat, the moon provides the timing'. He then launched into his conspiracy theorist view of meteorologists:

     'Their funding is for finding what's unusual, bizarre, anomalous, you know... first time this has happened, you know, since records began, that's what the funding is for...'

     What absolute nonsense, I fail to understand why so many people nod knowingly when Ring says things like this. There would be no such thing as the ubiquitous weather report if meteorologists only commented on the unusual and bizarre. If so, most every day of the year they would go, 'Rain... no that's not unusual, nor are sunny days, or wind and frost. Floods and storms are common place, droughts aren't bizarre, and snow has been seen many times. We're meteorologists, we'll be in touch when something anomalous happens, like raining cats and dogs'. Ring then continued his vilification:

     '...meteorologists are essentially storytellers, they're not really scientists because it's not really a science in terms of like bridge building or chemistry. You know, you can't take an earthquake into a lab and have another earthquake standing by watching, while you heat up this earthquake and see what happens, so you know you can't put a storm in a Bunsen burner. So you can't do the scientific method on weather, so it's more or less like geology which is also a bunch of stories, because you can't get rocks into labs and things. But it's a science in terms of the fact that as far as I'm concerned if you go back to cycles and bring it forward, that's what a scientist is prepped to do, to look for patterns and they can be repeated and extrapolated. So I'm saying what I'm doing is just totally science, the science of orbits and moon... as long as you appreciate or accept that the moon does have a role in the weather, and for thousands of years people thought so, it's just the last couple of hundred years people have kind of moved away from that.'

     Obviously Ring practices his replies, because the same tired old arguments turn up time after time. Previously he has said that 'Scientists are partly to blame for calling weather forecasting a 'science'. Bridge-building and chemistry are sciences but really weather is an opinion-based product based on best-guessing...' As we've told Ring before, while his forecasting method certainly isn't a science — it's a pseudoscience based on superstition — meteorology is a real science, and so is geology. If he wants a bunch of stories, try the Bible, the Koran and nursery rhymes. Ring's pathetic grasp of what science and the scientific method is is typical of someone trying to defend nonsense. By his logic, since you can't get a star or a blue whale into a lab, and since we can't repeat the Big Bang or evolution, then neither astronomy or biology can be a science either. But if you worry that perhaps we don't have any real sciences then, fear not since Ring is on record as assuring us that sex science and religious science are real sciences and the likes of blacksmiths and even dogs are real scientists. Again we remind you that Ring has a pathetic grasp of what science is.

     Note also his childish argument that we should believe in astrology-based weather prediction because 'the moon does have a role in the weather, and for thousands of years people thought so'. True, but for thousands of years people also thought that the world was flat, that witches were real, that fairies and leprechauns existed, that angels strummed harps on clouds, that comets prophesied disaster, and that your astrological sign determined your character and predicted your future. He's also correct in that during the last 200 years some people, and we need to emphasise 'some people', have moved away from believing in ancient astrology. We see that as a good thing, Ring doesn't, and yet our modern, advanced society only exists thanks to certain people throwing off the very superstition that Ring would have us embrace.

     To publicise how prescient he has been in 2013, Ring claimed the following:

     'In this year's almanac the word drought appears 6 times, so page 27, 29, 62, 83, 86 and... you know, no one else was talking about droughts, I mean NIWA didn't talk about drought at all, so we got that. Then we said April would bring torrential rains which would end the drought, well that's what happened...'

     First, let's state the obvious, Ring, the great maths expert, has scoured his almanac prior to the interview and apparently found 5 separate references that had used the word drought, and adding up these 5 occurrences Ring comes up with an answer of 6. Ring's incompetence never fails to astound me. But of course, without knowing the context, the mere fact that the word drought appeared means nothing. For example Ring could have simply reiterated that he thought there was little chance of drought, or that he predicted a drought for Southland in April, when in reality it happened in the North Island and the West Coast in the first quarter, 2013. Without looking at his almanac, we know, contrary to what he is now claiming, that the drought took Ring completely by surprise. Here is what he predicted prior to Feb:

     'Overall, February may be sunny and mild but rain in the first week breaks a dry spell. Around 8th, there may be heavy rains and floods for North Island and the West Coast of South Island but overall rain should be around average for both islands for that month'

     But there was no heavy rain or flooding in February anywhere in NZ. You may think that Ring's use of the phrase 'breaks a dry spell' means drought, but Ring goes out of his way in a Feb 26 article on Yahoo to dispel that belief. He writes:

     'So the question being asked is whether or not a drought is imminent. The answer is no'.

     So even while the drought is being widely reported in the media and farmers are seeking relief, Ring is blindly denying against all the evidence that a drought was even happening. Of course reading that article you might get a little confused, because Ring also states: 'Hang on farmers, rain is coming'. Why does Ring feel the need to reassure farmers of coming relief if there is no drought? Again you might argue that Ring is predicting rain that 'breaks a dry spell' rather than a drought? Apart from the embarrassing fact that this rain never came, whether it was to break a dry spell or a drought, let's remember that Ring claimed on the radio interview that he was clearly predicting a drought, not an annoying dry spell, and it was the word drought that he found in his almanac. But let's repeat Ring's clear answer to his own question as to 'whether or not a drought is imminent. The answer is no'. With a drought all around him, Ring was still denying its existence, and yet now Ring is deviously claiming that he had predicted it all along. This man has no shame. He also claimed:

     'We said there would be a late winter and spring would kill some lambs, and they did'.

     Without context, this claim is worthless. We certainly didn't have a late winter, so that's clearly false, and the cold nearly always kills some lambs somewhere, so it's hardly a valid prediction. Furthermore, in our local paper Ring predicted 'isolated snow falls... right into September and October' which brought 'a possibility of many lambs being lost in the freezing weather'. Again, this never happened, but note how Ring's memory of his prediction has changed from 'many lambs' to merely 'some lambs' somewhere. Ring's general claim in the media is, with his hand on his heart: I made some predictions and I was right. You'll just have to trust me on that. No, no... you don't need to look it up.

     Ring evidently turned up to the studio with an instrument that measures CO2 in the air, and took a reading:

     Ken: It's up to 1220 parts per million in the air.

     Andrew: Is that bad or good?

     Ken: Well the temp is only 21 degrees, but outside it's anything like 370 parts per million, stuff like that, but what I'm trying to show is, and I use this when I do talks, that carbon dioxide has no impact on temperature at all, with this global warming thing...

     Karyn: Ohhhh...

     Ken: If CO2 was such a warming factor you wouldn't need heaters, you'd just wrap your body around a bottle of coke, and you'd warm yourself up.

     Karyn: So if we're outside we have one quarter the amount of oxygen we should have? It balances out.

     Andrew: Yeah.

     Ken: No, it's not like that at all... CO2 is actually twice as heavy as air and is buoyed up by heat from the ground and at night when there is no heat coming off the ground the stuff drops and that's when the plants get it... If CO2 went up into the atmosphere, then the plants would have to extend themselves about a 100 feet to get it.

     This is Ring showing complete ignorance about CO2. We and others have tried to explain the science to Ring before, but he's not buying any of it. Take his silly claim that 'If CO2 was such a warming factor you wouldn't need heaters, you'd just wrap your body around a bottle of coke, and you'd warm yourself up'. He's obviously referring to the CO2 found in fizzy drinks, and elsewhere he has said 'If CO2 alone heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is'. But as we've already told him, no one claims that the mere presence of CO2 heats up the atmosphere. CO2 molecules are not little radiant heaters. The fact is that CO2 only helps to trap heat energy provided by the Sun. It doesn't generate the heat itself. You could think of CO2 as acting like blanket, but blankets don't generate heat, they merely help to retain the heat that is already in the body.

     Then Ring is confounded by this statement that he makes: 'CO2 is actually twice as heavy as air'. For a start, when we are talking about the atmosphere, CO2 is part of the air, so it makes no sense to say CO2 is twice as heavy. Yes, if you have a balloon full of pure CO2 and another full of air, the CO2 balloon will be heavier, and by one and half times, not two. But Ring fails to grasp that CO2 does not float around in the atmosphere as pure pockets of CO2. CO2, and oxygen and nitrogen etc, are all mixed together and make up the air. When we breathe in we really only want the oxygen but we have no choice but to also breathe in the nitrogen, argon, neon, hydrogen etc, and the CO2. If CO2 never mixed with air then it would stay around our feet, but it does mix. Ring is also fond of the following analogy: 'Bricks Don't Float Up', and for the same reason that bricks don't float, being heavier than air, CO2 won't be found in the upper atmosphere either according to Ring's logic. However since we often see heavier than air objects in the sky — planes, birds, hang-gliders, CO2 etc., then it's quite plain that there are mechanisms that may cause heavier than air objects to rise into the atmosphere, whether Ring likes it or not.

     Ring continues with his silly argument, stating that 'If CO2 went up into the atmosphere, then the plants would have to extend themselves about a 100 feet to get it'. But think about this. If CO2 doesn't rise how does it reach trees for photosynthesis, some which are higher than 100 feet, or reach trees high up mountainsides? It should all be lying in the valleys. And speaking of plants, photosynthesis and CO2, Ring claims that 'at night... the stuff drops and that's when the plants get it'. Elsewhere Ring has claimed that CO2 dropping at night 'is why photosynthesis occurs overnight'. Photosynthesis if you remember is the process where green plants utilise the energy of sunlight along with CO2 and water to produce carbohydrates, releasing oxygen as a byproduct. Without sunlight, eg at night, there can be no photosynthesis. In fact at night the cycle reverses and plants actually take in oxygen and release CO2. Ring's ignorance of basic science is astounding. But gullible radio hosts and callers treat him as an-knowing academic.

     Of course it would be a bogus argument, but you could jokingly suggest to Ring that since he has shown that there is more CO2 in the studio than outside, due to human activity, and it's likely much warmer inside, then the higher temperature must be due to the higher level of CO2! Therefore human produced CO2 does indeed cause warming. End of story. Case proven.

     I noticed that on the RadioLive site there is an Oct, 2012 audio link where 'Karyn & Andrew talk to Ken Ring, renouned [sic] Earthquake predictor'. Being renown means to be 'widely honoured and acclaimed', so I guess this clarifies how they view Ring's status in society. Not just a weather forecaster, but a widely honoured and acclaimed earthquake predictor as well. So in this latest interview, when a question turned to earthquakes, Ring claimed authoritatively: 'They've left Christchurch and the clustering of them are moving up country and they've been hanging around Seddon'. Apart from making them sound like a bunch of juvenile delinquents, it's clearly wrong since Ring himself predicted that a 5.9M quake was expected to hit Christchurch on Dec 2. Also it clearly doesn't explain the severe 6.2M earthquake that struck in Southland on Dec 16, the very day before his interview. Why was there a quake in Southland (which he failed to predict) and why was he predicting one in Christchurch (which never happened) if the potential quakes were all 'hanging around Seddon'? Clearly it is just Ring making things up and hiding his failures as usual. Ring also harped on about predicting the deadly Christchurch quakes, even though we have shown that he never did. And the mere fact that he keeps referring to these two historical quakes rather than more recent ones is because he has failed to predict a single quake since then. He even missed the massive magnitude 9 quake that hit Japan.

     Revealing two callers asked Ring about the death threats he received following his failed Christchurch quake predictions in 2011. Back in Jun 2011 Ring tried to claim that the stories of death threats were all lies invented by the media, stating that 'The media seem to be at it again... This is ludicrous... the media nonsense that has Ken Ring... claiming continuing death threats... Last week New Idea Magazine wanted the exclusive on the "death threats".' And yet in this interview he is back to acknowledging that the death threats were real, and explained them to starstruck caller Cathy thus:

     'If you don't understand something it creates fear... and fear produces anger... and you get that if people haven't looked into the science of it, the science of it is just common sense'.

     So is this Ring's excuse? Is this why Ring resorts to threats and insults towards those skeptical of his claims, calling me, to give just one of many examples, a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi'? Does Ring's inability to understand science create fear which then manifests as anger towards those who have the insolence to ask questions? If Ring is to be believed, that ignorance creates fear then anger, then yes. But speaking for myself, I don't understand a multitude of things, like how billions can believe in gods or how people can enjoy reality TV shows, or how Ring can choose astrology over astronomy, but my lack of understanding doesn't create any fear, I don't lie awake at night, hugging a shotgun to my chest. And my ignorance of these matters doesn't produce a burning anger towards those people who mystify me, if anything it produces pity. Certainly I agree that Ring's death threats would have involved an element of anger, but anger because of the unnecessary fear, worry and stress that Ring's bogus quake warnings evoked. People weren't angry because they didn't fully understand Ring's earthquake prediction method, they were angry because a shameless scam artist was taking advantage of vulnerable people.

     And note how Ring explains his method: 'the science of it is just common sense'. This is someone who clearly doesn't understand the relationship between science and common sense. If science has shown us anything, it is often that what we think is common sense is quite wrong. Common sense says the world is flat, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that a god must have created everything.

     Ring explained that he warns people of coming earthquakes because 'I just want them to be mindful so the surprise doesn't upset and shock them like the Christchurch ones were doing'. Is that what he thinks the Christchurch quakes were doing, surprising people? They were killing people Ken, and wrecking the cityscape. Does he really think that people wouldn't still be shocked with the death and destruction if only they had listened to him?

     Ring then explained (falsely) how the Moon's gravity and the tides causes earthquakes:

     '...people think that the real tide is the water tide, it's not, the real tide is the land tide... the land goes up and down every day... about 8 inches a day... but the water just sits of top of that... so what the water does... it finds its way into the expanded bays or contracted bays and that is all we get to see... That's why those big earthquakes in Christchurch... happened at low tide which was high tide in the land...'

     His first mistake is claiming several times that we experience one tide a day, when we actually experience two. While there certainly is a land tide, discovered by scientists, not astrologers, Ring's second mistake is to apparently claim that the Moon's gravity somehow ignores the water and concentrates solely on the land mass. Evidently the water only moves because the Moon is altering the shape of the water container. But the land movement would not cause the ocean to rise and fall the way it obviously does. Ring has said (correctly) that the land can rise by 20 to 50cms, and yet the ocean tides can rise in some places by 15 metres! According to his explanation, when the land is rising vertically the ocean should if anything go down. So why does lifting the land a small distance cause a much greater lift in the water, if the Moon's gravity is only pulling the land and not the water? His third mistake is to claim that ocean and land tides are always opposite. How could the Moon's gravity have an opposite affect on the tides of the ocean and the land? As the tidal forces are causing a low tide in the oceans, why are they, at the identical time, causing a high tide, the inverse, in the land? Why are they, in simple terms, pushing the water and pulling the land at the same time? Our understanding is that the tides in the oceans and the land happen in unison and in the same direction. Ring seems to be rejecting the little science that even he used to accept, preferring to now base his method on 100% pure nonsense.

     Karyn asked Ring about his past prediction of a 'minor' quake that was to hit Christchurch on 20 March 2011 that saw many flee the city.

     'No, I said it was going to be the next biggest one, and there was a 7 intensity one in the evening, which they calculated to be a 6 to 6.9'.

     Typical of Ring, his reply was all lies. He never said it was going to be 'the next biggest one', here is what he originally predicted:

     '...the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk... 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'.

     You can understand why some people were scared and took flight. But of course nothing happened, there were no major quakes in Christchurch, let alone a magnitude 7 quake. After the 20th had passed, Ring pitifully came out with the following plea that he was right all along:

     'Perhaps future science history books might note the 4+ earthquakes that occurred artound lunchtime in Twizel... and possibly close enough to Christchurch to be considered a correct prediction.'

     What arrogance to think that future science history books will be defending Ken Ring's silly beliefs. And for those not familiar with NZ, Twizel is no where near Christchurch, nor were the Twizel quakes powerful, damaging quakes. Later still Ring then claimed that there was indeed a magnitude 7 quake in Christchurch but the powers that be immediately downgraded it to a 5.1 M, with Ring stating that 'GNS downsized it for reasons yet to be told'. Clearly Ring implies that they did this to stop him claiming credit for a correct prediction. But typical of all conspiracy theorists he offers no evidence to support his accusations. Also note that in this recent interview he claims that 'there was a 7 intensity one in the evening, which they calculated to be a 6 to 6.9'. He doesn't repeat his accusation that they downsized it to 5.1, instead he now falsely up-sizes the official intensity to 'a 6 to 6.9'. But even if this were the magnitude the experts gave, why is he still calling it 'a 7 intensity one'? These are all devious lies on Ring's part to fool gullible people into believing his failed prediction was actually correct. And Karyn and Andrew apparently swallowed every word.

     Getting back to his climate change denial, Ring 'explained' why climate change is impossible, and what we should be telling people:

     'If you look up climate in the dictionary it says 'latitude'. Man can't change any of that. What they are doing is frightening the children. You've got two choices, you can tell your children it's their job to look after the planet, they've got to fight pollution, we've got ozone etc etc etc, or you can smile at your children everyday and assure them the world is a happy place. So, you know, that's what we should be doing, because children deserve that'.

     Oh... won't anyone think of the children? Bullshit Ken. Children deserve the truth. Ring's problem is that he spends too much time in Ringworld, not in the real world. There can be lot of happiness in people's lives but the world is not a happy place. There is a real problem with pollution and ozone depletion, not to mention wars, starvation, disease, crime, overpopulation, poverty, natural disasters and stupid astrologers pushing their ignorant beliefs onto gullible people. This reality may frighten children and even many adults, but it won't go away by hiding from it. Ring's argument appears to be that if something might frighten the children then it should be suppressed and ignored. But unlike Ring, I doubt if most parents are reading pollution and ozone depletion horror stories to their children at bedtime. And of course children should be shielded from some things, but that is no reason to hide the reality from adults as well. Not everyone can live in medieval Ringworld, reading fairy stories to children and adults alike.

     Also, I did look up climate in the dictionary and it didn't say 'latitude'. This is what mine said:

     climate:
     1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
     2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.

     While a region's latitude does play an important part in it's climate, you can't predict climate by latitude alone. For example, based on latitude Southland should get much colder winters than Central Otago, but it doesn't. In South America there is desert and rainforest at the same latitude. Ring's flawed argument is that the terms climate and latitude are one and the same, that latitude dictates temperature, and since humans can't change the latitude of any given country then clearly humans can't change the temperature at any given latitude. If latitude can't change then climate can't change. But Ring fails to grasp that humans could potentially change the temperature through factors other than latitude. As an analogy think of the physical address of your house as its 'latitude'. As far as room temperature goes, you can't change the 'latitude' of your house by pushing it around to find some sun or shade, but you can switch on a heater to warm it up or a fan to cool it down. This would be an example of humans changing the temperature while the 'latitude' remains the same. Ring misrepresents the climate change issue by adopting a mistaken belief that climate hinges solely on an unchangeable latitude and blindly ignores other factors.

     When asked about Mercury and earthquakes, Ring came out with this:

     Ring: The big quakes in NZ happen when Mercury and earth and the sun are in a line, that's what happened with those Christchurch ones, and it seems to be a factor... Venus is in there as well, Jupiter especially, ahhhh... sometimes, because it's the biggest one. When Saturn and Jupiter get in a line that creates extra electromagnetic field radiation coming off the sun and that disturbs earth's electromagnetic field as well.

     Andrew: How do you work out all that, again is that all set in cycles and patterns?

     Ring: Yep, and it's accessible free off the net, you go to these programs like Astrolog, it's all free shareware... it's just a matter of knowing where to look.

     Since Mercury, the Earth and the Sun are in a line roughly every six weeks, NZ should get around nine big quakes every year. And if we then factor in the quakes caused by Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, plus the planets Ring didn't mention, Mars, Uranus and Neptune, then surely hardly a day should go past without a big quake happening somewhere in NZ? Of course Ring doesn't say why Mercury causes big quakes in NZ, and just NZ evidently, not in other countries, but he does claim that Saturn and Jupiter cause 'extra electromagnetic field radiation' on the Sun which 'disturbs earth's electromagnetic field', which somehow causes big quakes in NZ. Of course all this is just pseudoscientific nonsense on Ring's part to impress listeners. Note Ring's reply when asked how he knows all this, that he uses software programs such as Astrolog. But what Ring didn't reveal is that Astrolog isn't an astronomy program or a physics program or a science program of any description, it's an astrology program for use by astrologers to predict the spooky influence they naively believe the cosmos has on us all. Their advertising states that 'Astrolog is a freeware astrology program... that shows you all you need about astrology', and the program was written by a person that believes that 'We are spiritual beings having a physical experience', that believes in other forms of divination in addition to astrology such as tarot cards and runes, and that believes 'we are regularly visited by beings from other worlds', some of which are abducting us and others are busy creating crop circles. Expecting Astrolog to understand and explain the real effect of electromagnetic field radiation would be like expecting a medieval witch to explain genetic engineering. The problem with many radio hosts and listeners alike is that because Ring uses scientific sounding phrases they wrongly believe that he must be talking about real science. They couldn't be more wrong. Ring is as close to a scientist as a Christian is to an atheist.

     The fantasy hour finished with a call from Aden that disheartened me the most:

     Aden: With the geology of the islands, is it possible to put a tunnel or any sort of structure between them or is it geologically impossible because of the plates and things?

     Ring: I don't know, I'm not a geologist of course, umm... well, you know, I have my own thoughts about what they call the Alpine Fault and stuff... I think earthquakes create faults, not vice versa... I think they could easily dig a tunnel, they must have the technology, they're digging one through Victoria Park here [in Auckland], and they did that OK...

     It wasn't Ring's reply that made me feel despondent, it was that an adult, a fellow Kiwi, someone that probably votes, would think that an unqualified astrologer is the best person to ask about matters of geology and tunnelling. At least Ring didn't pretend he was a geologist, but then he immediately gave his opinion anyway. Who needs education, qualifications and experience? Once again noting that he didn't believe in plate tectonics, in mainstream science, he naively asserted that they could easily (and presumably safely) dig a tunnel across Cook Strait. Once again, it is depressing to realise how many people would ask Ring this sort of question and then no doubt blindly accept his answer.

     The most cringe-worthy comment of the evening must go to caller Cathy, who clearly excited (and perhaps a little confused with Nelson Mandala), asked:

     'I love the moon... but what I wanted to say, are you going to be writing a book, because you are fascinating'.

     As they say, there is a sucker born every minute, and there are radio shows that help connect suckers to scammers.
455. Comment by Ben, 27 Dec, 2013

     On the matter of weather leading up to Christmas, Wellington escaped the rain and we had a beautiful few days. It has pissed down today 27th. I have to say through clenched teeth Ring must have been giving his opinion for Wellington. Perhaps Mercury was in conjunction with Pluto (the Walt Disney dog).

456. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 Dec, 2013

     I suspect Ben that your guess as to the cause of your weather is certainly as valid as Ring's, and has as much chance as being correct. For me, over the last 8 days Ring has been correct 4 days out of 8. That's the same as a coin toss, as pure chance. Why spend around $50 on his almanac every year when a coin toss is just as reliable?

457. Comment by Jason, 06 Jan, 2014

     Hi John, I flicked a link to your blog — Ken Ring dupes 'Karyn and Andrew' — thru to their Radiolive show and got this reply

     Hi Jason,
     I don't believe I agreed at any point about his theories or methods. I merely asked him about them. There's a significant difference. I put the skeptics questions to him and let him answer them. 'Duped' is just a word that suits the blogger. Regards
     Karyn Hay

     Can't say I buy her answer. Will they have him back on?
458. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Jan, 2014

     Thanks for that Jason. Personally I got the impression from several utterances from both Karyn and Andrew that they were impressed with many of Ring's answers and explanations, that they were learning new things. And of course they were, just not true things.

     She did indeed mention some criticism from skeptics but there was no robust followup to Ring's answers. It's like putting an atheist's question to the pope — Is God real? — and letting the pope answer — Yes! — and then leaving it at that.

     This evidently was by no means the first time that Ring featured on their show, so if they don't agree with Ring's weather and earthquake claims, why do they keep getting him back on, and at the very least give gullible listeners the impression that there is some validity to his method? Note also that she doesn't reveal whether she actually agrees or disagrees with Ring's theories or methods, but merely said that she didn't explicitly say on air that she did agree. To use Karyn's quote, 'There's a significant difference'.

     I believe that if radio hosts keep bringing a businessman onto their show to give him free advertising for his wares, this suggests a positive relationship between them and an implicit acceptance of his product. No one gives free hour long plugs to a product they believe is bogus, or at least borderline. For example, on her TV show Oprah only promoted books that she loved. Of course it's true that some radio hosts do interview people whose viewpoint they disagree with or know little about, but they should in either case research the topic before hand so that they can ask probing questions and know enough to stop the interviewee pulling the wool over their eyes. It's one thing to put a skeptic's question to Ring, it's another to know if Ring's answer is anything but pseudoscience or an outright lie. People may not always agree with sites like ours, but they should at least be aware of the lies, failures and errors on Ring's part that we claim to have exposed, and ask him how he responds.

     I've heard many Ken Ring interviews, and unfortunately this is how your typical one goes (Note that while this is an imagined transcript, all these questions have been put to Ring at different times and they are real answers that he has given):

     Interviewer: Skeptics say you're a fraud. Are you?

     Ken Ring: No. I'm not!

     Interviewer: Wow... good answer. OK, next question. Skeptics say you didn't predict the Christchurch quakes, how do you respond?

     Ken Ring: Well I did. I clearly told many people after the quakes that I did predict them, so I don't know why people keep bringing this up.

     Interviewer: OK then. Is it true that astrology is just nonsense, as skeptics argue?

     Ken Ring: No, of course not, it's been around a lot longer than science.

     Interviewer: Ah yes, good point. Although I understand that unlike astronomers and geologists you don't have a degree in your field?

     Ken Ring: Does Richie McCaw need a degree to captain the All Blacks, or did Edmund Hillary need one to climb Everest?

     Interviewer: umm... no. I hadn't thought about it like that before. This is deep stuff. I've heard that you've said that there were human civilisations 120 million years ago, back when there were dinosaurs. Were you misquoted?

     Ken Ring: No. You need to mostly disregard what western archaeologists say — they know nothing of any of this. Schools and universities suppress our true prehistory, just as they do the predictive power of astrology.

     Interviewer: If your almanac said it would rain on a particular day and someone says it didn't, does this mean you were wrong?

     Ken Ring: No, I was right, they were wrong. Somewhere in NZ, or at least in the world, it did rain on that day, they were simply in the wrong spot. You can't blame me for that.

     Interviewer: Of course not. Bloody skeptics! So where can people buy your book?

459. Comment by Brian, 10 Jan, 2014

     Hi John, Ken once again demonstrates what a silly person he is. In his latest blog he gleefully latches on to the story about the icebreaker getting stuck in the Antarctic and expects us to believe it is somehow proof that climate change does not exist. Using the same logic, someone could claim that the fact that NZ and Australia have both just experienced the warmest year on record is proof that climate change DOES exist... It is like taking a couple of measurements during ebb tide and saying that is proof that global sea levels are falling. Anyone with an ounce of reason recognises that all these things are merely noise and what is important are long term trends (something a long range weather forecaster should know surely). I could write a long explanation about why Ken is wrong about other assumptions in his blog, but I am on vacation and I have much better things to do with my time.

460. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Jan, 2014

     As we both know Brian, Ring highlights and misrepresents any evidence that appears to support his worldview and ignores or misrepresents any evidence to the contrary. He's the sort of person that would say that he's only got to look into his deepfreeze to see that the world isn't getting warmer.

461. Comment by Ben, 19 Jan, 2014

     I see in the UK a local councillor is blaming recent storms and floods on the decision to legalise gay marriage.

     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358

     I am a bit worried since the weather in NZ has been reasonably clement. Do you think the Almighty will intervene for failure to believe in ken Ring?

462. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Jan, 2014

     If God were to intervene weatherwise Ben, I suspect it would be to smite Ken Ring for his ongoing criticism of Christianity, believing as he does that Christianity is largely responsible for bringing astrology into disrepute. And then he would smite Ring's followers for having blind faith in the wrong person.

     And as for not believing in Ken Ring, I've been checking the predictions he delivered on the 'Karyn and Andrew' radio show for the last month. Over 32 days where he predicted fine or wet weather, for my location he got 9 days correct and 23 wrong. Another excellent reason for not believing in him. By mere chance alone, by simply tossing a coin, he could perhaps have got around 16 predictions correct, and yet he only got 9. He should throw out his astrology software and simply start guessing, that might at least make him right half the time. But of course the MetService, while nowhere near perfect, are far more accurate than mere guessing, and their predictions are free.

463. Comment by Ben, 20 Jan, 2014

     I may have spoken too soon. We have the tail end of a cyclone bearing down on us and there has just been an earthquake. Did KR predict these? Possibly Virgo and Pluto are rebuking me for lese majeste of their favourite son.

464. Comment by Jamie, 21 Jan, 2014

     Hi John, after yesterday's 6.2 shake at Eketahuna, I suspected it wouldn't be long before Ken Ring gave us his take on what had occurred. But what would it be this time? There was no full moon, no new moon, no perigee, no apogee, no king tide. Perhaps Pluto had made a near pass over the Wairarapa? I waited anxiously...

     At last, on Monday evening he tweeted: "At 3.52pm today moon was exactly beneath our feet. Shake was near time of local low tide. Next risk time 29 Jan to 3 Feb? (perigee+kingtide)".

     AH! So it was the LOW-TIDE and the moon UNDERNEATH us this time was it Ken? Anyway, I thought I'd check out his claim that the moon was "exactly beneath our feet": Using free software available online (Stellarium), I positioned myself in Wellington and wound back the clock to 3:52pm on 20th January 2014.

     As you can see from this screenshot, the moon is not positioned "exactly beneath our feet". It is around 50 degrees below the horizon, or roughly halfway between the horizon and Nadir (point directly below the observer).

     Also, the low tide at Castlepoint was around half-an-hour earlier than the shake.

     Try again "Moon-Man".

465. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Jan, 2014

     He really is quite pathetic isn't he? He exhibits no embarrassment in tweeting his warning AFTER the quake, rather than before it. And whether it's a high tide, low tide or mid-tide, whether it's a full moon or new moon, close by or far away, above our heads, beneath our feet, or just slightly to our left under that tree over there, Ring is convinced that the Moon is out to get us. And by us I mean the folk living around Eketahuna, they are the new Sodom and Gomorrah evidently. This is truly superstitious thinking. Ring can't comprehend that the Moon is ALWAYS exactly beneath the feet of someone on the planet, so as I've said before, quakes should be travelling around the world like a Mexican wave as the Moon passes by.

     Ring tweeted that the Moon was 'exactly beneath our feet' at the time of the quake, but by 'exactly' he of course merely means somewhere out there in space. You're supposed to trust him Jamie, you're not supposed to check his claims. Naughty, naughty. You'll make it look like he's just making it all up.

466. Comment by Jamie, 22 Jan, 2014

     Hi again John, it's hilarious watching Ken frantically tweet AFTER the event.

     Yesterday he added:

     "Farewell Spit is the EXACT same latitude as Eketahuna. We say whales strand due to underwater earthquakes. Strandings = earthquake warnings"

     He's lying once again. Geonet lists the 6.2 quake epicentre as Latitude 40.62 South. Farewell Spit is at 40.51 South. In fact, Pahiatua's latitude is closer to that of Farewell Spit's than Eketahuna's is.

     Not "EXACT" Ken. You lie.

     Regardless, I fail to see the connection between the 2 locations, when they are 240km apart! Also, the strandings at Farewell Spit this year have been going on since about the 5th January. The quake was on the 20th, 15 days later Ken.

     Although scientists don't fully understand why whales strand themselves, the topography of Farewell Spit is very likely to be the cause of these strandings. Here's a recent article that explains: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11189886

     I live in Christchurch and I don't recall any whale strandings occurring at New Brighton or Sumner beaches around the times of our big quakes. Or even at the same latitude on the West Coast! Did I miss something?

467. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Jan, 2014

     Hi Jamie. Of course when Ring tweets, 'We say whales strand due to underwater earthquakes', by 'we' he means ignorant earthquake astrologers, not marine biologists who are the real experts on whale behaviour. I can't understand why some people blindly believe what Ring claims, when any person of average intelligence and education should quickly realise that he's talking bullshit. Oh... maybe I've just answered my question.

     He also says that 'Strandings = earthquake warnings', but how could observing a whale pod strand be taken as an earthquake warning? If a quake caused the stranding then the quake is long past! Thus what he should have said was just the opposite, that quakes should warn us of an impending stranding, and therefore we should rush to the surf to scare off any approaching whales! Of course the authorities warn us to stay away from the beach after large quakes because of the tsunami threat, so what are we to do? Save the whales or save ourselves? Sorry cetaceans, I like you, I really do, but you're on your own. Following a big quake, I'll be trying to get my flat screen TV into my car and heading for high ground.

     But as you say Jamie, the many Christchurch quakes didn't see a single whale strand, and there is simply no evidence that quakes cause strandings. Ring in his ignorance claims that quakes cause the 'shell shocked whales [to] float up and the tide brings them in'. But as we've said before, if these earthquakes can stun these big, powerful mammals, why aren't other weaker sea creatures being affected? Why is it just whales on the beach, why isn't it a who's who of the sea world?

     And as you also point out, there have been many whale strandings recently and these don't match up with earthquakes. Some whale pods even stranded again and again after being refloated. Even if there was a quake that caused the first stranding (which there wasn't), there was definitely no quake to stun them the second and third time.

     With his untruthful tweets embarrassingly sent after the fact, Ring is clearly desperate to keep his name and brand of nonsense fresh in the minds of those stupid enough to see him as all-knowing.

468. Comment by Ron, 26 Jan, 2014

     Hello John. Whilst reading a post criticising Ken Ring's methods I came across this new word LUNARCY. The definition is: the misguided and foolish act of weather forecasting by the moon.

     In Ken's January newsletter proof of more blatant client gullibility emerges when he says "farmers have requested we make available calendars for regions, that they can be hung on shed walls. These are now already available". These clients appear not to realise they are investing in info. that is usually about 70% wrong!!! Well, maybe in time they will see a better use for them as dart throwing practice boards. If some of these clients have money burning a hole in their pockets why not try a charitable donation instead. Many good charities are desperate for funds. Please people, make the effort and do some basic research before sending money to this man.

     And what about this for sheer cheek as Ken calls the kettle black: "Most obvious worry in NZ is quake risk because of CH.CH. 3 yrs ago. Since then the possibility of repeat events have been overblown by the media who have a lot to answer for because alarmism sells". Isn't he wonderful? 2 faced hypocrit.

     This leads me to the crux of this comment John. His obvious other silly beliefs/opinions outside the weather/quake predictions. Latterly he has been using the emotive ploy of targeting children to push these beliefs with comments like "we must encourage our children to dance and sing as they used to" and "our children can know there is no threat to the planet from burning fossil fuels, no CO2 pollution, no rising sea levels, no retreating glaciers, no oil reserves running out, no more or less quakes, cyclones, droughts, floods, no increased danger from the alpine fault", which he describes as fictional danger. He goes on "we have a responsibility to shield children from unproven fears. That there is no witch in the attic, no big bad wolf". Who are supposed to be reading that, kids or adults? Isn't all this a tad arrogant and irresponsible? Is this another cunning well known ploy to win over the adults via the kids to hopefully gain some new clients? To any parents reading those grossly irresponsible comments, do some homework. Do not take that man seriously To go over some of his smug comments. Yes, some are saying we are awash with oil. But should he be encouraging new generations to just continue living out of control with no regard for the environment or the planet? Everywhere I see new very expensive vehicles, often a V6 or V8, the owners obviously well off with the cost of fuel just pin money and what care about this earth.

     Ken's comments re. the alpine fault are ludicrous. Science has proof of multiple ruptures of mag8 plus regularly over centuries. They know there is much elastic strain building on its eastern side. The threat is always there and logically increasing over time. It is not fiction Ken, but a real serious threat to life property and infrastructure. There have been more severe weather events in the last 20yrs than the entire period since record-keeping began. Data also reveals increased quake activity, esp. larger magnitudes which can also ignite some volcanoes. Mountains of evidence exists showing definitively and clearly that, globally, glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate, many since 1980.

     This planet passed the ideal sustainable human population years ago and continues to gain at an alarming rate. After deaths, this earth gains 140 humans every minute or approx. 200,000 daily. Population has doubled since 1986. In the year 2010 the number of motor vehicles increased by 35.6 million. 80 billion tonnes of carbon is released into the atmosphere annually, almost double what the earth can comfortably deal with. More wealth means tourism and esp. air travel growth is way out of control. Not only the normal escalating demand for more planes, routes and services but worst is the exploding proliferation of the budget airlines, particularly in Asia targeting the masses, the millions of poorer people who would never otherwise have considered flying. And who cares, not Ring, of course. Growth is desirable, right? Rainforests, the powerhouses of our climate, used to cover 14% of our planet, now it's 6%.We are losing 1 1/2 acres every second!!!! Well within the lifetimes of youngsters today it will all be gone if we continue as normal.

     How can Ken Ring simply disregard all this and dangerously believing it is all fictional and with no detrimental effect on our world. How can he be so bloody cynical and irresponsible?

469. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Jan, 2014

     Ring now selling Ringworld calenders evokes unpleasant thoughts. What might the photos be of, him in a bikini, him poring over his astrology charts, and still in a bikini?

     As for his tearful plea, Won't anyone think of the children?, you're right that this is just a cunning ploy to make parents feel guilty, and for parents to involve their children in his nonsense. And as the religious know, the best time to brainwash people is to get them as children, before they can think rationally.

     Ring's problem, or at least his main one, is that he's tied his business to astrology, a primitive superstition that has no basis in fact. Thus to maintain his credibility in the eyes of his clients he's forced to criticise science and dismiss scientific views as bogus to maintain a point of difference. He must invent evil conspiracies to explain why intelligent, informed people disagree with him. As long as he embraces astrology, which is little different to believing in leprechauns and fairies, then he's forced to decry pretty much everything the scientifically based modern world proposes. And like many selfish, ignorant people, Ring doesn't really care if his nonsense helps screw up future generations, he needs to keep doing it to make money now.

Return to Article

Add a Comment