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:

470. Comment by Jamie, 28 Jan, 2014

     Hi John, I've been following this discussion on sci-blogs over the last few days: non-science nonsense & quaking whales

     It's astonishing that he can write this with a straight face, "Results cannot be repeated elsewhere by others because we are dealing not only with observations but with observer bias."

     EXACTLY, Ken. "Observer bias" is what got you into this mess in the first place!

471. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 29 Jan, 2014

     Thanks Jamie. I've had a read of Alison's BioBlog post and its following comments. Very entertaining, and as always, when Ring shows up he never fails to perform. The posters all make excellent comments which do a good job of forcing Ring to show his true colours. Eventually he is even invited to submit a guest article defending the science of his claims, which he initially agrees to do. Then clearly his PR person or life coach makes him see reason — 'Are you a fool? This would be like a medium submitting to controlled testing. Their reason will tear you to shreds, you'll come away looking like an ignorant Medieval astrologer that thinks the Moon is conspiring against us'. He admits as much when he backs out, 'Peter, I cannot see that it would work. This is not science as discussed and expected here by people who are university-trained...' This is Ring having his bluff called, admitting that what he talks about is not science, and fleeing back into the shadows where reason-tipped barbs can't find him.

     But in his first comment, Ring is once again playing the dishonesty and ignorance cards, again lying when he claims that Isaac Newton was an astrologer, and hopes that readers won't know that he wasn't. Alison and others try to set Ring straight on this matter, but they shouldn't have to. Way back in 2009 we pointed out in an exchange with Ring (here), that he was wrong, but to paraphrase that old 'You can lead a horse to water...' saying, you can show an astrologer the truth, but you can't make him accept it. Now he also adds Archimedes, stating that 'as Archimedes was definitely an astrologer... then I would be VERY proud to be one of that company'. This is typical Ring, forever comparing himself favourably to famous people. He goes on to say that, 'Of course I am fond of the astrology that all those illustrious names... subscribed to. What self respecting scientist would not be?' After admitting that he's fond of ancient astrology, he deviously implies that he is a scientist, when he is no more a scientist than I am a Martian. Further on he claims that 'I have been science trained in two universities'. And yet after spending 3, or 4, or 9 years at university (Ring suspiciously offers different answers to how long he spent at university), during which time he gave up on science and switched to the arts, he still didn't manage to gain a qualification of any description, not even in Medieval basket weaving. But clearly Ring tries to intimidate opponents with this and similar statements, it is quite devious to imply that you have qualifications and expertise that you do not.

     But back to Archimedes, long ago I learnt never to trust what Ring claims, so checking out his link on Archimedes, there is a short paragraph that mentions his achievements, that he 'developed many mathematical theorems and proofs... simple machines, like the lever, pulley, and screw, and... his scientific discoveries'. There is no talk of astrology on the entire website apart from this opening sentence:

     'Archimedes was a Greek mathematician, scientist, and astrologer'

     But how accurate is this single reference to astrology? The webpage quotes its first source as the Wikipedia page on Archimedes, which in turn quotes 'BBC History'. And this is how the Wikipedia opening sentence goes:

     'Archimedes... was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, inventor, and astronomer'.

     Notice the difference, that according to the 'BBC History' source Archimedes was an astronomer, not an astrologer. Why did the webpage that Ring refers us to feel the need to change this to astrologer? Was it perhaps a simple typo? Maybe so, since as I've said, it makes no further mention of Archimedes' work with astrology. And why did Ring ignore the more reputable sources and link to this obscure site, perhaps because it was the only one that connected Archimedes' fame with astrology? And of course Archimedes could well have dabbled in astrology, who knows, but we need to remind ourselves why people like Archimedes are famous. They are famous for the ideas that they got right, that were revolutionary and that led to an advance in knowledge. They are not famous for any ideas, eg astrology, that they got wrong. If Archimedes was simply an astrologer, and nothing else, no one would have heard of him. Ring is worshiping him for the wrong reason, like if I was to claim that Albert Einstein is justifiably famous because he played the violin.

     But while Ring is fond of astrology and uses astrology, he hates being called an astrologer, because he knows that educated people today view astrology as a superstition. But using it and yet hiding from it causes problems for Ring, in that his talk of astrology is always conflicting and confusing. In one comment he moans that, 'No, you miss the point. I am called an astrologer here... as if that is not science. I said I am not an astrologer by today's meaning, but the astrology of Archimedes could be called part of the science as it was then that I am using'.

     This is where we all shake our heads in disbelief, because clearly astrology is not science. Ring can call it ancient astrology if he wishes, a type of astrology practised by the ancients rather than modern astrologers, but if anything that would only make ancient astrology even more flawed than modern astrology. Let's remember that ancient astrologers didn't know of the existence of celestial bodies such as Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, or anything about the Moon's apogee and perigee. If astrology could indeed predict events on Earth, as Ring insists it can, then modern astrological calculations would be far more accurate and predictive than the ancient astrology that he claims to use. Why is he using the inferior version of astrology? Ring claims that he is using 'the science as it was then', that is, 'the astrology of Archimedes' that astrologers practised over 2,200 years ago. And yet Ring has implicated the influence of Pluto in his weather and quake predictions, so how could this be 'the astrology of Archimedes' since they didn't know of Pluto? Ring is clearly using modern astrology, of the type that we read in silly magazines, but is simply too embarrassed and ashamed to admit it. Instead he pretends that the ancient astrology he's using is a different beast to the modern astrology that people giggle over. In a sense he's right, comparing ancient astrology to modern astrology is like comparing an ape to a human, clearly related but clearly different. If I were to adopt astrology, I would certainly seek access to the knowledge available to modern astrologers rather than rely on that available to the ancient astrologers.

     Ring claims that as regards science, we should 'see astrology as part of its evolution', and by this he means that ancient people looking at the night sky and the world around them used their curiosity to devise explanations as to what it might all mean. They came up with astrology. Over millennia they refined their ideas, eventually realising that the original explanation as to what was happening and why — astrology — was fundamentally flawed. Keeping the raw observational data, such as the recorded movements of planets, they ditched astrology and founded the science of astronomy. Certainly science, specifically astronomy, evolved from astrology, just as humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, but while acknowledging this evolution, Ring at the same time wants to insist that astrology didn't remain a primitive ancestor of astronomy, long dead and buried, but is a sibling, alive and well and equal in value and worth to astronomy. Ring claims that not only did astrology lead to astronomy, but that they are now both valid. Astronomy didn't replace astrology, it complements it, much as some believe witchcraft and prayer complements modern medicine. They each have their strengths. Yeah, sure they do. Astrology, witchcraft and prayer came from our ignorant past, when we knew no better, and it is depressing that in this enlightened world some people aren't content in leaving them there.

     When Alison noted that Ring has 'said that whale strandings are linked to earthquakes', a very annoyed Ring replies, 'Oh, where? Once again you are making up what you have decided I have said. I would never say such a definite thing'. She again had to remind him of a claim he had written on our website where he states that 'the earthquakes under the sea get them... [and] The shell shocked whales then float up and the tide brings them in'. We could also remind him that in five separate tweets this month alone he asserted that:

     'We say whales strand due to underwater earthquakes. Strandings = earthquake warnings.'

     'It's an odd science that says there's no whale strandings-earthquake connection.'

     'Earthquakes cause whales and dolphins to beach themselves. There is some rather irrefutable science behind it.'

     'Seaquakes explain why whales beach.'

     'Earthquakes at sea cause whale strandings.'

     No confusion there, earthquakes and whale strandings are linked according to Ring. The trouble that scammers have is that they often forget what they've said and to whom, lies have a tendency to get out of hand very quickly, and so they are continually contradicting themselves. In defensive mode, he shamelessly accuses Alison of deliberating lying, when it is in fact he who is lying. And I say lying deliberately since surely he should remember his very recent tweets, and especially since his whole argument in this post is based on earthquakes and whale strandings being linked. Ring is that sort of person that rants without engaging his brain, and lying apparently comes naturally to him.

     Still in lying mode, he then felt a need to again dismiss all the comments he has made in the past and that can be found on our website, 'Alison, any quotes on the blog Silly beliefs are all taken out of context. I will not respond to them. I always qualify my statements and would never make stand-alone statements that this or that always occurs. Are you really using old Silly Beliefs half-quotes as your source of my statements? Are you really that desperate?' Ring is truly haunted, embarrassed and deeply annoyed that his past comments can still be accessed and that they make him appear such a fool. Not to mention a thoroughly vindictive person. There's a saying that any book worth banning is a book worth reading, and I think the same applies to our expose on Ring. He wants us ignored and banned because he knows that his past utterances are extremely harmful to his reputation.

     Ring has two goals in mind when engaging with people. The first is to convince gullible fools with money that his silly beliefs are actually worth paying for and following. If this fails, then the second goal is to contain criticism, shut down debate, silence laughter and intimidate opponents, posthaste. That is why he has called us, among other disgusting things, 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazis'. And that was just one insult from Ring, I didn't just join several together! He has threatened us with legal action to silence us, and spread lies about us on other forums. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have a voodoo doll with my likeness full of pins. He must lie and tell people that his very own comments on our site cannot be trusted, since the last thing he wants is for people to read the truth, to discover some of the ridiculous, erroneous and vile comments he has made in the past defending his nonsense.

     So Ring trolls the Internet seeking forums that might be talking about him, and when his attempt to woo them fails, and it always does, he switches to containment. As poster Simon noted, all Ring does is 'respond with a never-ending stream of excuses, diversions and insults'. Ring refers to posters as 'nonthinkers, swine, a Boot Gang, hitmen waiting to annihilate, professional shinkickers, a tough crowd spoiling for a brawl, and of overtly calling in your miserable cavalry'. To Alison, author of the post, he says, 'Alison, at least be honest, instead of just disingenuous... I doubt from your actions and comments both here and there that you even know what actual scientific discussion entails'. This is Ring, an astrologer, purveyor of nonsense and failed university student telling a real scientist and university lecturer in Biological Sciences that he is the expert here in matters scientific. What arrogance, what ignorance. But typical Ring; insult, intimidate, frustrate, close down debate at all costs. Ring states that 'The joy of science is in the debate about possibilities, the hunches, and the speculations', but Ring doesn't really believe this because he gets very annoyed when he learns that word of this forum debate has got out and has been passed to the 'NZ Skeptics'. He disapprovingly notes that 'Alison sends what is on here straight to other websites or other discussion blogs', and rails that the 'NZ Skeptics does not discuss science, only condemns what they think are not their ideas about what constitutes science'. When Ring gets a good tantrum going he's fun to watch, you never know what garbage he's going to come out with.

     Ring complained that 'I'm a little tired of being told I don't understand science, when I am the only longrange weather forecaster for three countries, the author of annual almanacs... and the only person who successfully tweeted... before the Christchurch earthquakes...' Does he not grasp that simply being a soothsayer that has duped people in three countries does not mean he therefore must know something about science? A equally deluded psychic could use the same argument: 'I'm a little tired of being told I don't understand science, when I am the only psychic medium that visits three countries, the author of four books on spooky stuff... and the only person who successfully predicted that there would be earthquakes in 2010'. In fact, the silly beliefs that both astrologers and psychics choose to follow would suggest that science is a mystery to them both. Ring affirms this by adding that 'Science is not just what any one person fancies that it is. Every scientist has his/her own take on it. There is sport science, toy science, shoe science, theatre science, waterskiing science'. Previously Ring has informed us that 'there is Creation Science, Christian Science, Scientology and science fiction. Anything can be a science, and one who studies it is a scientist'. His ignorance of what science means is truly astounding. That he would talk about 'toy science' to people that really are scientists just demonstrates how out of his depth he is.

     The last comment I read was from Ring getting upset when Simon said,'You're a dishonest person, Ken'. Ring demands, 'Apologise please Simon, this is slanderous'. Ring still fails to understand that it is not slanderous to tell the truth.

472. Comment by Graham, 30 Jan, 2014

     Hi John. Here are two things that definitely aren't linked. Ken's weather predictions and reality — "First week in April is expected to have the Queensland state threatened by the first true cyclonic system of the season when a system is expected to develop around the Solomons around April 5..."
     http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2013/09/03/3839951.htm

     Cyclone Dylan approaching Townsville on January 30 doesn't seem to have read the script, or maybe it's because ancient astrology didn't take the passage of pluto into account.

473. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 Jan, 2014

     Hi Graham. Ring must be extremely peeved when the weather doesn't pan out as he predicted, meaning he'll be ill-tempered most of the time, Auckland's very own 'Oscar the Grouch'. Like you I suspect Ring's state of perplexity over the status of Pluto could well be the cause of this embarrassing failure on his part. Since the ancient astrologers he worships were ignorant of its existence, he's not sure whether he should it ignore as well. Of course astronomers have recently removed its status as a 'planet', which should solve his problem, he can simply pretend it doesn't exist. And believing in fantasies is something he has shown great skill at.

     But then astronomers also say the Moon isn't a planet either, conflicting with Ring's astrological view, so clearly, what do they know? Out of animosity towards astronomers I'm sure he'll choose to ignore their down grading of Pluto, but then keeping Pluto conflicts with his ancient astrology. What's an astrologer to do? He'd better decide soon since it's clearly impacting negatively on the accuracy of his predictions.

     I also noticed that the journalist of that ABC article wrote that 'Ken predicts weather patterns by planetary cycles and orbits of the moon and sun'. No doubt this is just parroting what Ring says when he explains what he does, since I've seen many journalists report this quote, with none of them ever realising that the Moon and planets have orbits, but the Sun doesn't. Only ancient astrologers believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. Interviewing someone who talks about the orbit of the Sun should immediately tell you that you're dealing with someone who hasn't kept up with scientific knowledge. Perhaps journalists get assigned interviews with Ring as a punishment, and like going to the dentist, can't wait for it to be over, quickly writing down a few choice quotes and then rushing home to spend an hour sobbing on the floor of the shower.

474. Comment by Miles, 01 Feb, 2014

     Hi, John. I've just found this:

     GPM satellite to usher in a new era of weather observation

     The Ring will be useful here — either he'll be able to tell them where to send it to get the nice rainy pictures, or maybe he'll be able to explain to them why they are (or are not) seeing rain where or when they expect it. He may even suggest they fit the satellite with a rear-view mirror so that it can also keep an eye on the moon. And Neptune. And Pluto.

     I wonder if the satellite has a Docking Ring, and if so which anatomical part it attaches to.

     But seriously, this is *very* clever stuff.

475. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Feb, 2014

     Thanks for the link Miles. But seriously, I doubt if they need Ring's help, I'm sure they already have a team of eminent astrologers on the project, how else could they know how to get it up there and what orbit to place it in?

476. Comment by Dave, 03 Feb, 2014

     I don't want to seem petty - BUT I have my eye on this long term what ever it is (opinion/prediction/etc) attributed to Ken.

     Yahoo News New Zealand - May 17 2012 8.22am

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

     Mind you he has left this one pretty open - 2015 - 16 - no day, week, month or exact year nor even a time threshold - and an above mag 7 so if there were a mag 7 he can't claim it as he has said "above". It's nonsense and bull and alarmism to the gullible. Why didn't we have a warning of the the magnitude sixes in 2013 - 14 in the same regions? Also Ken tweets

     "We say whales strand due to underwater earthquakes. Strandings = earthquake warnings"

     Yes John I have read your stuff, Alison's stuff etc about whales stranding but the question I would like Ken to respond to and clarify is this - "when the whales strand due to underwater earthquakes, is that when the epicentre is underwater or when the whales are underwater and there has been a land based earthquake which has sent shock waves underwater - or is the earthquake on land mass that is underwater? Please define an underwater earthquake. Sorry Ken, still confused so a second question - if there has already been an underwater earthquake causing whales to strand - then why would strandings be an earthquake warning for an event that has already occurred?.

477. Comment by Jamie, 04 Feb, 2014

     Hi John, just spotted this article today...

     http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/batten-down-the-hatches-more-rain-and-gales-are-coming-1.1677022

     "The storm of that weekend does not appear to have been predicted by New Zealand weather forecaster Ken Ring who has claimed considerable success in predicting Irish weather including last summer's heatwave based on tidal flows and lunar cycles.

     According to Mr Ring's Ireland Weather Almanac 2014, the weather for January 25th to 27th should have been mild weather and fairly light winds."

478. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Feb, 2014

     Well spotted Jamie. The media are sometimes willing to print his predictions, but seldom bother to check and reveal his many failures after the fact, so it's good to see one that is prepared to hold him to account.

479. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Feb, 2014

     Last week (11th February 11) nine orca were found stranded on a beach in Southland, and unfortunately they all died. This incident was featured in the national media, and then Ron advised us that the Stuff website had followed up with this article — 'Did quakes cause orca stranding?' Orca expert Dr Ingrid Visser, founder of the Orca Research Trust, was quoting as saying:

     'A lot of people are thinking that the stranding is possibly linked to seismic activities, earthquakes in the area but we don't know until we get down there'.

     I'd be curious to know if Visser raised this possibly or whether she was simply responding to a question from some moronic reporter. Visser has never mentioned a link to quakes before to my knowledge. It's a little like me, a skeptic, saying that, 'A lot of people are thinking that psychic mediums can talk to the dead', but it doesn't mean that I actually believe that their silly claim might be true. I'm merely noting that a lot of uninformed people think this. This talk of quakes stranding whales has Ken Ring written all over it, who else in NZ is suggesting a link? Whoever raised the possibility clearly got it from Ring's nonsensical rambling, but strangely I haven't yet seen Ring claim that he predicted the demise of these orca. Maybe he's on holiday? That said, I did find an article from a website that is a favourite of Ring's, which he mines for data:

     UNDERSEA EARTHQUAKES... THE REAL REASON WHALES MASS STRAND THEMSELVES

     The gist of the article is summed up in the following quotes:

     '9 killer whales swim upon the rocks... on February 11, 2014. These whales had suffered a previous barotraumatic injury that damaged their sinuses (barosinusitis) and led to the failure of the biosonar and caused them to be LOST... Having no working biosonar, they accidentally ran into the rocky shore... Their biosonar... was knocked out... by an extremely shallow... 4.7 magnitude earthquake that occurred... on January 28th, 2014... The epicenter was ~150 nautical miles... SSW of the stranding site.'

     This was written by a retired sea captain who clearly hasn't visited the site or examined the orca, so how does he know that any, let alone all, of the orca 'had suffered a previous barotraumatic injury'? Even if they had, he has no evidence that it was caused by a quake, let alone that particular quake. Also he has no evidence that the whales were even in the area of the quake, he's merely guessing, and he's likewise just guessing when he explains why they would travel to that particular beach, he simply says, 'I suspect that there was a circular eddie or storm at the time of the quake that might have led the whales into Te Waewae Bay were they swim around in a circle for a week or so before getting washed ashore'. Since the quake was two weeks before the stranding, he has to fill in time by having the orca 'swim around in a circle for a week or so'. Like Ring, he hears of a stranding and then goes in search of a quake that he can connect, without any evidence that there is a connection, to the stranding. This is like someone misplacing their car keys and then going in search for gremlins, since they are convinced there is a connection. If a quake (or gremlins) can't be found, this doesn't shake their conviction that there is a connection, the devious authorities probably just suppressed the evidence!

     The trouble is that people believe that Ring is a scientist, rather than an astrologer, and since his quake/stranding claim sounds plausible they treat him like an expert. And his claim is plausible and deserves to be considered, but when no evidence shows that it is actually happening, it needs to be rejected as a failed hypothesis. The world might be flat, astrology might work and aliens might have built the pyramids, but when evidence refutes these claims, they need to be forgotten. The public and the media need to be able to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. I'd like to see Visser explain that there is no good evidence that a quake caused the stranding of the orca, just as there is no good evidence that they were part of an alien experiment. Of course a scientist would admit that aliens might have been involved, we can't prove they weren't, but the public often infer from this frank honestly that the scientist is seriously considering aliens as being a possible answer. Scientists need to change the way they talk to non-scientists.

     The Stuff article also noted that a Ngai Tahu representative 'flew in yesterday morning to perform a karakia (prayer)' for the dead orcas. It annoys me that while we thankfully seldom see Christian priests and ministers publicly offering prayers and blessings these days, the bloody Maori equivalent of priest and witchdoctor is taking over this public role. Prayers over orca, prayers at accident sites, putting a tapu in place at crime scenes and blessing the opening of new police stations and stadiums! We've just swapped one superstitious moron for another. Do they not realise? There is no heaven for orca!

     Update: A follow-up article the next day discussed what Dr Ingrid Visser and her team of scientists found on reaching the orcas. A pathologist said they were badly decomposed, but he hoped blood tests might determine if they had died of an infection or disease. The researchers took measurements and blubber and stomach content samples. The team made no mention of the orcas having 'suffered a previous barotraumatic injury' that would have 'led to the failure of the biosonar and caused them to be LOST', as claimed by the retired sea captain. He could evidently determine this without even examining the orca, and yet the on-site scientists couldn't. On examining the orca, did Dr Visser make mention of earthquakes again? Well strangely, if the article is to be believed, she did. But look at the comment she made before seeing the orca and then after:

     'A lot of people are thinking that the stranding is possibly linked to seismic activities, earthquakes in the area but we don't know until we get down there'.

     'A lot of people are thinking that the stranding is possibly linked to seismic activities, earthquakes in the area but it is hard to determine'.

     Apart from the ending of each comment, they are identical word for word. Did she really make the second comment, or is this just the reporter putting Visser's original comment back into the story to keep the quake idea alive?

     The article also noted that yet another Ngai Tahu representative performed yet another karakia (prayer) for the dead orcas. How many are required before the orca gods take notice?

480. Comment by Jamie, 18 Feb, 2014

     Hi John, I've just stumbled across this blog.

     http://irishmansdiary.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/announcing-ken-ring-watch-2014-kenringwatch/

     It will be amusing checking-up on this one each month!

     Notice how Ken always manages to find these sites and add in his two cents? He's managed to find this one and add a comment on Feb 10th. The blog started on Feb 9th.

     He must spend all day googling himself silly!

481. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 19 Feb, 2014

     Yes Jamie, obviously Ring is paranoid that people might be criticising him somewhere in the world. He should just accept that they are and get back to his astrology charts. I noticed that Ring asserted that 'I won't take part in your witch hunt... I don't really care if you read my work or not, that is up to you, and I certainly don't have to be answerable to you', and yet here he is doing exactly the opposite, taking part in the debate. And typical of Ring, he forgets what he has told people and tells a new lie further down the track. In one comment he says, 'I have already admitted I get about a quarter wrong', and yet in his next comment just a few hours later he says, 'I HAVE admitted I get things wrong about a fifth of the time. So do most people'. Surely someone that claims to have taught maths should know that a quarter and a fifth are not the same? Also he's utterly wrong in his belief that 'most people... get things wrong about a fifth of the time'. Do pilots or surgeons or plumbers fail once in every five attempts at their job? I know if I got 'things wrong about a fifth of the time' my employer would fire me, and I would be too scared to drive to work anyway, knowing I would crash on average once a week. Ring really needs someone to proofread what he writes and remove the nonsense, your average kindergarten kid should be sufficient.

482. Comment by Zafir, 23 Feb, 2014

     Hi John, I was more than a little pissed off to see this front page story.

     'Moon man' uses quake prediction to beat charge

     "The ASA said the likely "consumer take-out" from Ring's advertisement was that he could make opinion-based weather predictions, which were "often but not always accurate", and this was clear to consumers."

     This is a remarkably weak response from the ASA. As a number four predictions might be considered often. I would be interested in so called correct predictions as a total percentage of all the predictions Ring has made.

     The following is taken from the ASA website (asa.co.nz):

     "The Advertising Standards Authority's complaints process requires the Advertiser to provide substantiation/evidence to support the claims made in their advertising, if challenged. Therefore, if a complaint is made that an advertisement is misleading or deceptive, it is the responsibility of the Advertiser to provide sufficient information to enable the Complaints Board to assess the accuracy of claims or statements made. It is important to note that the Complaints Board will consider the likely consumer take-out of the whole advertisement, not just the claim in isolation."

     Will have to waste some time and challenge their finding.
483. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Feb, 2014

     Thanks for the link Zafir. I question the direction society is going in when an astrologer wins out over reason and evidence. We read that Wellington geochemist Douglas Sheppard complained to the Advertising Standards Authority over Ring's advertising. The article correctly informs us that:

     'Ring sells long-range weather projections on his website and advertises them by saying he differs from meteorologists, who cannot make long-range predictions.'

     It goes on to say that 'Ring, Sheppard said, "is quite unable to make accurate long range predictions — this has been demonstrated many times". On the grounds of social responsibility and truthfulness, Sheppard said the ads failed to meet the ASA standard'.

     It then says that 'In response, Ring gave the ASA four examples of accurate long-range forecasts', and yet of these examples, two concerned prediction of earthquakes in Christchurch. The fact that Ring did or did not predict earthquakes in Christchurch (he did not) is irrelevant to the charge that Ring can make accurate long-range weather projections. He is not being challenged over whether he can predict earthquakes, but whether he can predict the weather. His website and almanac, the subjects of the complaint, are called 'Predict Weather' and 'Ken Ring's Predict Weather Almanac' respectively, not 'Predict Earthquakes'. The recent edition of his almanac has been changed to the 'New Zealand Weather Almanac', but still no mention of earthquakes. The two earthquake examples Ring provided should have been disregarded as irrelevant, inapplicable and misleading.

     Worse still, even if they were relevant to the case, they should have been examined to ensure that Ring's claims of their validity was actually true. Apparently they were accepted on face value. We have shown time and time again that Ring is lying when he claims to have predicted the Christchurch earthquakes. The article apparently even accepts that his March 20 killer quake that could be one 'for the history books' never happened with their comment: 'KEN RING: Caused nationwide controversy when he predicted a massive quake would take place in Christchurch on March 20'. Everyone except Ring accepts that this killer quake never happened, so why was his example accepted as being an accurate long-range prediction by the ASA? Furthermore, in January it was reported in the media that there have now been more than 11,000 earthquakes in the region since the initial quake, so if Ring claims he can predict them, why has he only predicted 2 from over 11,000?

     The article then notes that 'Other examples included predictions of lamb deaths in the cold spring of 2013, drought in the summer of 2012-13, and predictions of scorching heat for Ireland'. I'm not familiar with Ireland, but it's already been revealed that his lamb and drought claims are bogus.

     I've written previously that Ring claimed: 'We said there would be a late winter and spring would kill some lambs, and they did'. But 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. As for the Ring predicting the drought, even at its height Ring refused to acknowledge there was a drought. In his Yahoo article he wrote: 'So the question being asked is whether or not a drought is imminent. The answer is no'. In another article he was still in denial, writing, 'Hang on farmers, rain is coming'. He was wrong, no rain arrived in the short term.

     So even the weather examples Ring provided are bullshit, and yet the ASA blindly bought those too.

     As Zarfir notes, it would be good to see the 'so called correct predictions as a total percentage of all the predictions Ring has made'. Ring told that ASA that he claims 'only . . . 80 to 85 per cent' prediction accuracy, but again the ASA obviously didn't question how he arrived at that accuracy figure, if they did they would discover that, like his predictions, he just made it up. This claim to accuracy should have been the thing that proved Ring's case, that he could do as he claimed, so why didn't the ASA ask to view the data that generated this 80-85% result? Clearly, like the public and media in general, they simply took his word. Fools. Let's remember that predicting 2 earthquakes out of over 11,000 is way less than 1%, and so close to zero that it might as well be zero. Didn't they even have a calculator? Ring argued that based on his self-claimed and unsupported 80-85% accuracy claim that the complaint that he was ''quite unable to make accurate long-range predictions' is false'. And they believed him! And to think that these people might serve on juries.

     In supporting Ring's scam, 'the ASA said it was not "an arbiter of scientific fact"'. But surely whether Ring can or cannot accurately predict the weather long-range is a scientific matter, and could be easily determined, and in fact it appears that the ASA believes it was determined by science and the use of statistics, ie Ring is 80-85% accurate. But if the ASA refuses to arbitrate on whether advertising claims are scientifically true, doesn't this mean that you could claim things that are scientifically false or unsupported, such as green mussels cure cancer or Jesus heals cancer? I mention these two examples because both are real cases that were forced to cease making these advertising claims. So why didn't the ASA care whether Ring's claims were scientific or pseudoscientific?

     The ASA said 'its role was to consider the ads from the perspective of the likely audience and decide whether claims were substantiated by the advertiser'. Clearly the ASA believed Ring did substantiate his claims, even though we've argued they were all bogus. Since they came to believe that Ring and his astrology can predict weather and earthquakes, then clearly they felt that Ring's likely audience is entitled to believe that too.

     Exposing his soothsayer origins, Ring even had the audacity to challenge the ASA as to whether horoscopes should be 'banned because unexpected inheritances and tall dark strangers failed to materialise'. Well yes, they should be banned if they were to promote themselves as a legitimate enterprise that promised a high accuracy rate and claimed scientific support, rather than just being a silly belief that only fools took seriously.

     The ASA seemingly also bought Ring's pathetic defence that his 'website carried a disclaimer that his information was "opinion-based".' Really, that's all it takes to get away with telling lies in your ads, add a disclaimer that it's only an opinion? So you can advertise that 'Jesus heals cancer', as long as you add in the small print, 'Well, that's my opinion anyway'? But let's remember that Ring has argued elsewhere that 'By definition an opinion, just like a feeling cannot be wrong', so when he's saying his predictions are 'opinion-based' he means they can't be wrong. So they're not really what intelligent people would call opinions, so his claim is misleading and deceptive. And as Zafir pointed out, the ASA insist that ads must not be misleading or deceptive. And yet they let Ring away with it.

     Apparently the ASA believe that Ring's potential clients know that his predictions are just opinions, like what you and I might make after looking out the window, and that his opinions are 'often but not always accurate'. I agree that most will know that Ring is not always right, but unfortunately the ASA made no effort to discover and show others that Ring is not even often right, that is method is based on astrology and his claims are based on lies.

     If I was as paranoid and suspicious as Ring I'd say that he must have bribed or threatened the ASA to influence their decision, but the truth no doubt is that they are simply gullible and truly ignorant of Ring's history of lies. It gives me no confidence that they can investigate more complex issues when an astrologer can pull the wool over their eyes.

484. Comment by Anonymous, 24 Feb, 2014

     The ASA are a toothless tiger.

485. Comment by Graham, 24 Feb, 2014

     Hi John, I read about Ken's Irish Summer "prediction". He did correctly guess that there would be hot weather in July. The gullible end of the media got all excited about it and asked him what would happen next. He pushed his luck and said it would happen again in August: long-range-weather-forecaster-ken-ring-predicts-a-warm-august

     It didn't: http://www.met.ie/climate/MonthlyWeather/clim-2013-Aug.pdf. But that doesn't stop him saying he "got summer right". I'd call that 50% correct.

     What the mathematically challenged people at ASA fail to realise is that when a percentage is quoted, it should be something that can be verified, not something that is just pulled out of your... ring. To be fair he's not the only one who does this. Shampoo's advertise 80% more bounce, however that is measured. Butter with 25% less yak fat (compared to what?). Sounds sciency, but that's the basis of pseudoscience where Ken excels. Ken can't justify his 80-85%, so he resorts to anecdotes. And bizarrely, as you showed, chose forecasts he actually got wrong. With all his guessing, surely there's something he got right.

486. Comment by Doug, 24 Feb, 2014

     Dear John, I am the Doug Sheppard who made the complaint to ASA. I received from them their decision along with the plethora of documentation that Ken Ring provided, little of which was relevant. What was relevant and what the ASA acknowledged, but he has not, publicly, was that as soon as he received notice of my specific complaints, he amended his website. My complaints were that he claimed that meteorologists could not predict more than "1 day or so" ahead, and that they call weather "chaos" and "random". Ken Ring promptly amended his site to water down these claims. While not completely satisfied, I think that my complaint had some effect.

     My third complaint was that Ken Ring cannot make accurate long term predictions. It is only this one that he has gone public about.

     The ASA made its decision partly on the basis of the actions Ken Ring took to tone down his claims. I am reserving my position on whether I take this further and I will be guided by what you and others on this site advocate.

     I am distressed that the Authority departs from its Basic Principle 4, "All advertisements should be prepared with due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society", in that they redefine the consumers only as those likely to use Ken Ring's services and ignored the greater social harm that this pseudoscience will engender. Potential consumers who are likely to be taken in by his untruths and mis-information are not considered. Neither is the damage to science which our society relies on taken into account.

     I would suggest that readers of your site also complain to the ASA about statements on his website (this can be done simply online at www.asa.co.nz), and about this decision. Let's swamp Ken Ring with having to respond. He has shown that he will make considerable effort to ensure that he can keep on with his deceits.

     P.S. Actually John, Ken used three weather predictions and one earthquake prediction in his justifications, not four earthquake ones as you said. He did not use the one where he predicted that an earthquake would happen in specified areas within a few days in early December 2012, and completely failed. This was through his Yahoo blog and shortly after this failure and embarrassment he threw his toys out of his playpen and refused to play any more, by cutting any ability to comment on his ridiculous columns.

487. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Feb, 2014

     Hi Doug. First, yes you're right, I did misread the article where it said he gave four examples: 'Among them was a tweet he said he sent on September 7, 2010 — "more big earthquakes in 6 months time" — which he said predicted the earthquakes of February 22 and March 20, 2014. He also pointed to an item on his website from February 14, 2011, which predicted a big earthquake in Christchurch between February 15 and 25'. The item on his website will refer to the Feb 22, 2011 quake which already appears in his tweet, which is just doubling up. However the article does say that Ring is claiming that he also predicted the quake of 'March 20, 2014'. I assume they mean 2011, but as I said, that killer quake never happened. So through that one tweet Ring is apparently claiming two quake predictions. I've corrected my post from 4 quake predictions to 2. Which of course in the scheme of things is even worse for Ring, he believes he can only take credit for predicting a mere 2 quakes from over 11,000. And as you say, why didn't he reveal his embarrassing failure for Dec 2012 to the ASA? Anyone can paint a false picture by deviously suppressing all the negative data.

     Second, well done on taking the effort to force Ring to defend his nonsense. Anything that makes him squirm and reflect on what he is claiming publicly is a step in the right direction, and goes someway towards making this a better world. As Ring himself has said, we need to think of the children.

     It's typical Ring that he would edit his website claims with no explanation. He has argued on numerous occasions that meteorologists believe weather is 'chaos' and 'random', so why isn't he willing to defend that view to the ASA? His immediate backdown implies that he knows only too well that there is no evidence for that stance, and that he was, to put it succinctly, knowingly lying when he made those claims.

     I agree Doug with your view that the ASA fails regarding its claimed 'social responsibility to consumers and to society'. After all, surely its very existence speaks of a need to protect the general public from our own gullibility. Permitting an astrologer to continue promoting pseudoscience as long as he tweaks some of his claims clearly contributes to social harm. A worrying proportion of the general public still believes in the likes of astrology, chemtrails, homeopathy, hoax Moon landings and some god watching them in the shower because the media keeps suggesting that these things might be real. The ASA, I feel, exists because sensible people realised that a naïve, gullible public often don't have the knowledge or skills to differentiate between fact and fantasy, and that they must be protected from unscrupulous business practices. Therefore advertisers making claims must ensure that they are factual and not misleading.

     Like you I feel that 'Potential consumers who are likely to be taken in by his untruths and mis-information are not considered' by the ASA. I suspect that many people live by the view that, 'Oh come on, no one is going to be silly enough to believe that nonsense. We don't need some organisation to carefully spell out that astrology (or homeopathy or whatever) is bullshit'. Clearly this view is mistaken, as shown by many of our newspapers publishing horoscopes and pharmacies stocking homeopathic products. Some of the public still needs to be protected from their own ignorance, and the ASA has a job to do, they just can't assume that because they are not personally taken in by some silly adverting claim that the public that they are supposed to be serving are equally enlightened. As you say Doug, our society relies on science, and the ASA's public finding that an astrologer might indeed be able to predict the weather and earthquakes (and by association the stranding of whales) only supports those people, like Ring himself, that distrust science and scientists, while at the same time shamelessly embracing its technology. Poor decisions like this from the ASA only suggest that perhaps there is something to Ring's claim that he can predict the weather by using 'the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations'. Scientific progress is slowed when many people would rather that their spare dollars go to Ring's Almanac than real scientific research, and choose to ask an astrologer about earthquake risks rather than a seismologist.

     I wonder if you can appeal an ASA decision, or are they like referees, their decision being final? I think the ASA reached their flawed decision because, like most of the media, they simply believed what Ring told them, and never sought verification of his claims. Can you imagine a judge asking a murder suspect, 'Did you kill that person?', and on receiving a negative reply, says, 'Well, case dismissed then. You're free to go'. Perhaps the ASA needs to sit in on a few criminal trials to learn how a real investigation should proceed, or maybe just watch some TV shows such as 'CSI' and 'Bones'.

488. Comment by Dave, 25 Feb, 2014

     My pet Orca "Boris" suddenly returned today at Akaroa harbour after a few months absence and conveyed he had a hell of a time down south recently where he lost many mates and family. I asked him what happened and he couldn't explain it. He also ventured to suggest that at this point in time nobody else can either outside of wild theories and unproven opinions, of which the "moon" stuff is one. I asked whether the Telecom and Vodafone towers could be interferring with their sonar and he replied that it was just as good a guess as the moon.

489. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Feb, 2014

     You've confirmed a suspicion that I've had for sometime Dave, that some so-called dumb animals are more intelligent than some humans. Ring could learn something from Boris.

490. Comment by Jamie, 26 Feb, 2014

     Hi John, on 20th Feb, Ring tweeted:

     "Risk of large SI earthquake now to 25th, southern declination moon. Mars-Ven-Merc-Sun in line +neap tides. Also whale stranding Dunedin."

     As usual, a very vague and worthless "prediction" or "opinion", whatever you want to call it.

     So, it's now the 26th Feb, so lets take a look at what actually happened over the last 6 days (20th-25th):

     Geonet lists 434 quakes in total. The largest was a 5.1 and several hundred kms north of Auckland (in the early hours of 20th — before Ring's tweet). So, I think we can ignore this one. There were 7 quakes above magnitude 4 (5 of which are listed as "outside of network interest" or basically "too far away"). So let's call it 2 quakes over 4 mag. There were a further 18 quakes listed between 3 mag and 4 mag. (one is listed as "outside of network interest"). So, that's 2x 4 mag and 17x 3 mag quakes in Ring's "Risk Time".

     Ring then follows-up his tweet on the 23rd Feb with this one:

     "There's been 8 above-3M earthquakes in NZ since 21 Feb, including 4.0M in N Plymouth. Normal rate is 1 above-3M per day, so unusually high."

     "Unusually high"? Really Ken? Ok, lets check out what Geonet has to say about that:

     On Geonets "Facts and Stats" page here, they say the "rule of thumb" for over mag 4 quakes in NZ is 1 per day (not over 3 Ken, that's a big difference).

     I did my own check by downloading the quake data from Geonet for the entire year of 2013 here. In 2013, there were 3274 quakes above mag 3. That's an average of about 9 per day.

     So Ken Ring is either incredibly stupid or lying.

     In summary, Geonet say we can expect 1 above mag 4 per day and 9 above mag 3 per day. So over Ring's "Risk" days we should have expected at least 6 quakes over mag 4 and at least 54 quakes over mag 3. What did we get? — 2x 4 mag and 17x 3 mag.

     Overall, unusually quiet Ken. I'd call that a fail.

     I have a question for Ken Ring — Why should anyone respect your "opinion" when, more often than not, it turns out to be wrong?

491. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Feb, 2014

     While we're waiting for Ken to answer your question, Jamie, I have one for you. You wondered whether 'Ken Ring is either incredibly stupid or lying'? Do I have to choose, or can I go with both?

492. Comment by Jamie, 05 Mar, 2014

     Hi John, after enduring the last 3 days of terrible weather here in Christchurch, which some media are reporting as the "Worst storm in 100 years", I thought I'd try and find out what Ken Ring's Almanac had down for 3rd-5th March.

     I have this on good authority (I don't own or wish to be seen picking one up in a bookshop):

     "Mar 3: Dry, cloudy, fluctuating breezes

     Mar 4: Sunny, warmer, brief showers

     Mar 5: Sunny, cool and dry"

     It looks like your "Opinion" wasn't worth listening to yet again Mr Ring. Tell me — why didn't the "Moon Method" work this time? Has the moon done some thing different than usual? During the next "Moon cycle", will you take this event into account or not? And why?
493. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Mar, 2014

     Yes Jamie, Ring is building up quite a reputation for missing severe weather events. Name a flood, drought, snow storm, tornado etc and Ring will have missed predicting it. And yet he doesn't seem embarrassed by these abject failures. He's like the pope who on hearing of yet another of his priests abusing little boys, simply shrugs it off and carries on as if it never happened. As you say, clearly his 'Moon Method' has major shortcomings, suggesting that astrology should be left to predicting encounters with tall dark strangers. Perhaps he should go back to reading cat's paws, can they predict severe weather?

494. Comment by Tony, 07 Mar, 2014

     But when Ring says "Brief showers" he can also mean "Heavy rain", "100 year storm", "Tornado" or any adverse weather event, and any "opinion/prediction" can be a week or two either side of the date given.

     Ring emailed his favourite radio talkback hosts (Karyn & Andrew) after the event and pointed out that he predicted "Rain" for Kaikoura (which of course can also mean Christchurch or anywhere in the country), so in his deluded mind he was pretty much "Bang on" as usual.

495. Comment by Dave, 07 Mar, 2014

     I would like Ken to respond to Jamie's questions in post 492. I would also like to ask Ken why we poor souls in Christchurch were not warned about this storm we have had, or the large snow storms in the past two years, yet Ken claims he warned us of the earthquakes — but missed this recent event? Should Ken focus on either weather or earthquakes? Whilst I appreciate that Ken gives "opinions" I would like to ask whether in his almanacs he is giving opinions, forecasts or predictions?

     Oh also Ken, please answer Jamie's questions re post 492 and please answer mine from post 476 re undersea earthquakes and whales stranding. I'm not being a smart arse but if you put yourself out in the public then answer to the public when they have a query. Come on, answer the questions.

496. Comment by Brian, 07 Mar, 2014

     Hi John, in Ken Ring's latest blog he incorrectly assumes that James Cook sailed around Banks Peninsula and hence called it Banks Island. However, in reality, Cook called it an island because he was so far from the coast he was unable to see the low lying land beyond. The mistake was not discovered until 1809 by the captain of the Pegasus. See http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/james-cook-sights-banks-island. There are a number of other errors, including the use of the word liquefaction as a noun. Given Ken's failure to do adequate research on even the basics it will be of interest to see how accurate his predictions of flooding for Christchurch are over the coming months.

497. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Mar, 2014

     Hi Brian, like real science, Ring has no respect for real history either, preferring to rewrite it to suit his ignorant and ancient sensibilities so that it matches his agenda, which of course is to sell his scam. Ring claims that 'Nature is returning Christchurch to the swamp that prompted Captain Cook to name Banks Island'. Captain Cook is one of the most famous and respected navigators and explorers from history, are we really expected to believe that he would have been stupid enough to sail a large ship through a swamp? Ring evidently is stupid enough to believe that, and thinks his clients are too.

     And I had to shake my head in disbelief at his closing sentence: 'What must now be faced is that the city is now a water city, like Venice'. First I thought, clearly he's never been to Venice, or even seen images of it evidently, but then why compare Christchurch to Venice? Does Ring think that Venice just has a couple of rivers running through it, like Christchurch has the Avon? The man is either a fool or deliberately deceptive in his fear mongering comparisons. I suspect both.

498. Comment by Ron, 07 Mar, 2014

     Hello John, re the comments here. Dave, on behalf of himself as well as Jamie, is demanding answers from the scam artist, Ken Ring. Sorry but unless you are a miraculous exception this is extremely unlikely. I have commented on SB many times re KR over a lengthy period. In the last year or so he has never answered any of my demands or pleading for answers, not even to a pretty please. Nor does he answer to John it seems. He cannot. Simple. He has no answers. Period. If he honestly attempted to explain his endless failings he has too much to lose. His reputation in the eyes of many of his clients not to mention his business, would plummet in flames. He would then be exposed as the charlatan that he is. I read somewhere that Ring was quoted as saying he no longer reads anything on this site.

     That day and a half storm was scary, not for the rain or wind we got in the far south-west side (not exceptional) but for the wintry freezing wind. It was all June type stuff coming a few days into what should be a pleasant balmy season. Weird. Metservice gave us only really a 1 day warning.

     Ken Ring nothing, of course. In his blog, unwavering, he continues now with umpteen flood warning dates for the next year.

     In Monday's Press a Josh Oliver, spokesman for Canterbury Weather Updates, was warning of a severe winter in store with polar blasts and many snow events and cold snaps. He reckons we will follow suit with the Northern severe winter. What evidence is there that this happens. I cannot find any proof. All guesswork? Like Ken Ring? Don't you get tired of self styled, self appointed weather gurus out there constantly spouting doomsday type warnings ad nauseum? Is it for notoriety or does it do something big for the ego? If it was based on something concrete, then fine. But like economic and finance predictors, long range weather forecasters, along with psychics, they are usually way off.

499. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 Mar, 2014

     You're right Ron that Ring will likely not reply to any questions put to him, since he seems to have finally realised, or has at least been advised by someone he trusts, that his childish answers only damage his arguments. And yes Ring does occasionally claim he no longer reads our site, and yet he is often seen disputing claims made on our site in his own articles. For example, I recently debunked his false claim that the ancients knew of Pluto's existence, and then in his next Yahoo article he put forward an argument that ancient 'Hindi astrologers of old' knew of Pluto even though astronomers never 'discovered' it until 1930. Clearly he made this bogus argument to counter what he had read on this site. I have challenged Ring (here) to produce the historical evidence, but expect I will find god before that happens.

     But just because rational debate is beyond Ring and he's clearly not up to defending his claims, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask the important questions. When Ring refuses to respond to reasonable questions or to answer his critics, readers will obviously wonder why. If he has the evidence he claims he has, why not answer and silence his critics? Even though Ring won't answer, we need to keep putting the questions to him, so that readers realise, 'Oh, there's another question that Ken Ring can't or won't answer. He's becoming as evasive as the Vatican responding to child abuse claims'.

500. Comment by Doug, 08 Mar, 2014

     From his latest article on Yahoo Ken once again predicts (oops, sorry, gives an opinion on) the flooding in Christchurch — in hindsight. Again and as usual.

     "But in the interim the situation does not look too healthy. We have just been through the second highest tide of the year (2-3 March) due to perigee #6. It has also been the 4th highest kingtide out of the top 50 kingtides between 2010 and 2015. Looking ahead, the next heavy rain for Christchurch is likely around the middle of March, followed by rain about 17 April which is the start of Easter. Kingtide then will not be as high as this recent kingtide, but may still cause some flooding."

     Although he was a couple of days out if it is due to king tides, as he seems to be claiming. Once again, as usual.
501. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Mar, 2014

     I also note Doug that in Ring's article he makes numerous predictions for when people can expect a lot of rain, using the phrase ''heavy rain':

     expected heavy rains...
     the next heavy rain for Christchurch is...
     chance of a heavy rain dump...
     may bring more heavy rain...
     we can expect some heavy falls...
     next expected heavy rain is...
     2 heavy rain days...
     The next heavy rain date is...

     And yet when he has failed to predict all the floods of the past Ring, for years Ring has insisted that this is because his forecast method is not about predicting how much rain will fall, but only whether it will rain. It is not about amounts, ie heavy or light rain. When astronomer Bill Keir claimed Ring cannot predict rainfall amounts, Ring replied:

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

     On other occasions he has made similar clarifications:

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

     'Amounts are not the forte of the moon method, and I make no claim on them.'

     As we've noted before, Ring tells so many lies as to how his method works and what it is capable of that he quickly loses track of what he's said to whom. Clearly if Ring's past assertions are correct, then he should be unable to predict 'heavy' rain. All he should be able to predict is that it might rain, but won't know whether it will be a light drizzle or a once-in-a-100-years downpour. In simple, practical terms, his opinions are utterly worthless.
502. Comment by Ron, 12 Mar, 2014

     Hi John. Ken Ring's newsletter has arrived in an inbox near you. Arriving very late, telling us March has some heavy rains and floods and will be wetter than average. Big help Ken, big help. Had plenty of time to make some adjustments have you? We are also informed membership now stands at 10,312 up from last quote of 9000. Wow Ken, impressive.

     Lots of space telling us about the regional calendars. Hey John I decided not to purchase as you scared me off in an earlier comment/reply that Ken may be featured on a page wearing a bikini.

     I note for here (ch.ch.) the 13th, tomorrow, from his almanac we will get heaviest rain for the month. Forecast tomorrow is actually for 25 degrees and sunny fine weather. No rain on 14th either. An interesting entry for the full month says 12-20th NW ahead of a developing trough. 8 days? Must be a real slow developer. Funny, no norwest appears in our next 5 day forecast. He explains our nasty storm of 3rd and 4th of March was predicted for Kaikoura explaining it away as a slight geographical leeway from 2 yrs out which is the nature of longrange forecasting and apologises to CH.CH. residents!!! Worse he goes on about Pluto again and its return, stating its 248 yr cycle and the wet UK winter and floods were a 250 yr record. As you said John his opinions are utterly worthless. He tells us longrange products are not criminal in intent and referring to the ASA case he asks on what grounds can an opinion be tried. These "opinions" are very convenient for you Ken. In a somewhat nauseating diatribe he goes on about that case saying he was vindicated by the ASA and they did him a kindness for which he is grateful. He adds we are becoming a nation of bullying nosey parkers. Hey Ken, you are selling info to people, it is not free. You are answerable, though you hate to admit it. Some of us can see through you and fight back and you hate it. Ken rants about Doug Sheppard bringing a case against him to try censure his website. Good on him, I say. Interesting that Doug has been receiving Ken's newsletters for the last 7 months. Maybe like probably most of the letters recipients Doug has been analyzing the poor success rates and abject failures.

503. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Mar, 2014

     Hi Ron. Reading the info Ring puts out is like reading fairy tales for adults. I read that Ring predicts that rain is likely for me today, and yet it is a beautiful day. I also note that he thinks Alexandra is in Southland, so like Ireland, I guess he hasn't been there either. Also I hear warnings on the radio of an approaching cyclone for this weekend, but, as usual, no hint of cyclones from Ring.

     His articles are simply full of pseudoscience and conspiracy theory talk, Ring is one ignorant and paranoid person. I notice in his 'Disclaimer' he again compares the 'opinions' he doles out with those offered by doctors. He's told us that centuries ago doctors had to be qualified in astrology, I guess he believes that they still have to be. What arrogance it is for a failed astrologer to imply that doctors are, like him, just guessing. He also reassures readers that 'We have no interest in trying to undermine Christianity or other beliefs nor mainstream science'. This from a man who has condemned the Christian Church on numerous occasions for persecuting his beloved astrology, and whose every written word criticises and belittles science. For example, in the newsletter he offers an article called 'You can't keep a good moon down', where he challenges the scientific view as to what causes the tides, stating that, 'Neither does the moon's mass cause the ocean tide, which rides atop the Land Tide, which in turn comes about due to geomagnetic stress within the earth caused by the daily transiting moon through Earth's electromagnetic field'. Pure pseudoscientific nonsense, he might as well say that the tides are caused by tide fairies, except that phrases like 'geomagnetic stress' sound more believable to the scientific illiterate. Ring the astrologer has as much respect for science as does a religious fundamentalist.

504. Comment by Jamie, 16 Mar, 2014

     Hi John, I noticed Ken Ring was very active on his twitter account in the lead-up to this weekend's wild weather. On Friday 14th, armed with the Metservice information that was already available to us all, he tweeted 4 times:

     "Most Christchurch rain comes on Sunday, on winds from east."
     "Most Auckland rain is from midnight to tomorrow noon. Wgtn most rain Sat evening. Chch and Dunedin rain all day Sunday, clearing Monday."
     "Most Tauranga rain is expected Saturday afternoon and evening, including some heavy falls. Not much on Sunday, skies clear Sunday evening."
     "Most rain in Dargaville on Saturday, skies clearing as the sun comes out on Sunday. Unfortunately not much rain expected overall."

     However, here's his "long-range forecast" for Auckland and Hamilton taken from his Almanac...

     "March 14: Auckland: Changeable, clearing, partly cloudy, odd shower Hamilton: Sunny, Mostly dry, chance of brief showers.
     March 15: Auckland: Partly cloudy, mostly dry, chance of fog pockets Hamilton: Sunny and dry, hot, chance of fog pockets
     March 16: Auckland: Changeable, partly cloudy, showers, humid, breezy at times Hamilton: Sunny and dry, warm day, cool night, breezy spells
     March 17: Auckland: Mainly dry, sunny, breezy, chance of overnight drizzles Hamilton: Sunny and dry, breezy Christchurch: Sunny, dry, cool overnight"

     The overall theme — Sunny and dry. No mention of any heavy rain or strong winds at all. Even if you include a day either side of the weekend. Unless you'd call "the odd shower" and "breezy" as a worthwhile advance warning of the potential for power cuts, flooding and slips?

     I'd call that a miss for the "Long-Range Forecaster".

505. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Mar, 2014

     It's typical isn't it Jamie, Ring desperately scrambling to fool his gullible clients that he and the stars knew all along that Cyclone Lusi was going to make an appearance? And beyond the failed predictions in his almanac, as further evidence of his ignorance let's remember that Ring only put out his 'Newsletter for March 2014' on March 11th, and it made no mention whatsoever of any cyclone. Even at this late date Ring still had no idea that Cyclone Lusi was developing. He must have sleepless nights terrified that the weather will once again embarrass him by ignoring his silly astrological opinions. But of course Ring will always claim success, no matter how many lies it takes.

506. Comment by Rob, 21 Mar, 2014

     I just read a post from Ken Ring, originally from 'Guest Post From Ken Ring, Predict Weather'. This single paragraph explains how bad Ken's maths is

     "In January 2013 in the Irish Examiner I suggested that a heatwave was likely to arrive on 9 July, and that went into print. Throughout the year I was asked if I stood by that and I said I still did. I had no reason to change my mind. Sure enough, to the day the 9 July brought a heatwave. There were 364 chances of that not happening, and odds of 1:365 that it would. In science there are no flukes — everything has a reason."

     In calculating the probability of a heatwave not happening on a specific day, he claims "364 chances of that not happening, and odds of 1:365 that it would."

     This is not a probability that anyone could calculate accurately. Each day is an independent event, and the weather for one day, has no relation to the weather eleven months later..... It's like saying "if its cloudy today, it won't be for the rest of the year"... Ken is just depressing with the bullshit he comes up with.... I have forwarded this onto a few friends and family to show his failed logic, and hope you will do the same...

     The other creepy bit in the post was

     "If I am misreported by journalists that is not my affair, and bear in mind that when they ring me we often have conversation of about 15 minutes, so they write what they like and say I said it. I do ask but don't always get edit approval"

     ugggh, Ken Ring can't edit himself to look good on his own publications, apart from the appalling grammar and backtracking weasel words, what hope does he think he will have with having editing approval on his interviews...
507. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Mar, 2014

     Hi Rob, thanks for the link to more of Ring's nonsense. Like here and Australia, clearly there are moronic media and booksellers in Ireland that promote Ring and intelligent others that don't.

     You're right, Ring's heatwave argument just further exposes him as a fool. If I were to try and guess someone's birthday, we know without doubt that it will occur once each year. Since there are 365 days in every year I can only pick one day from 365, so the odds are 1 in 365 that I will guess correctly. But while we know exactly how often a birthday will happen, as you say Rob, we can't say the same for heatwaves. However Ring incorrectly implies that it was accepted by all that — just like a birthday — a heatwave would happen once, and only once, in Ireland in 2013, and the trick was to opine the actual day. Thus like a guaranteed birthday, Ring claimed that him guessing it would arrive on 9 July was at odds of 1:365. But if Ring were correct, this means that every day of the year has the same probability of a heatwave occurring as any other, that is, 1 in 365. But this means that heatwaves are equally possible in the height of summer and the depth of winter! Does that make sense? Who but an astrologer would believe such nonsense?

     I accept that many people don't understand probabilities, including me when they get complex, but this argument was set forth by a man, who if he has any qualifications at all, used to spend his time teaching mathematics to kids. Which of course includes teaching about probabilities. Those poor kids. How could a self-professed expert be so ignorant about what chance and probability mean? Oh, that's right... he's now an astrologer.

     I also noticed another probability claim that Ring made that was wrong. He said that, 'If a doctor issues an incorrect diagnosis... We say oh well, he may have gotten it incorrect on the day. 20% incorrect is 20%. It is not 100%'. Yes it is Ken. An incorrect diagnosis is indeed 100% incorrect. If a doctor were to make a false diagnosis of malaria, then he is totally wrong, not just 20% wrong and 80% right. Ring is talking about a single diagnosis, but one can only rate a doctor's diagnosis success rate if one tallies up a reasonable number of diagnoses, say 100. Then it's possible to say he got 20 wrong, which would relate to a failure rate of 20%, but not with just a single diagnosis as Ring claims. And for a further example of Ring struggling with maths, he trots out his old claim that his method 'carries about an 80-85% accuracy rate. That means it may miss 1-2 months per year'. There are three things wrong with this claim. First, for the percentage to relate to '1-2 months per year' it would have to be 83-92%, not 80-85%. Second, it is absolute nonsense to imply that a 80-85% accuracy rate would mean that 10-11 months per year would be spot on for every prediction on every day, and that predictions for the other '1-2 months per year' would be completely wrong every day. It's a little like me saying that over ten exams I scored a total of 80% correct answers. Using Ring's logic, he would argue that I got every answer correct in 8 exams and every answer wrong in two exams, giving 80%. Of course this would suggest cheating, since if I was a consistent student it would be far more likely for me to get around 80% correct in each exam, or 80% overall. Again, this is Ring not understanding what percentages mean. Thirdly, Ring doesn't understand that to legitimately claim 'an 80-85% accuracy rate', this rate must be calculated from real data. Ring on the other hand just plucked these numbers from the thin air of Ringworld. There is no reality behind them whatsoever, so again Ring fails to understand that for percentages to be meaningful, they must be real.

     And in case readers think that Ring just made a simple error with his percentages, let me quote similar claims that he has made previously. Ring has said, 'I never say I am right all the time, only maybe 80-85%, which means about 10-15% inaccurate'. Of course this is completely wrong, his inaccuracy rate would be 15-20%, not 10-15%. In another post he said that, 'I never claim 100%, no one does. 80% means 2 months per year potentially out'. Again, rubbish! Using Ring's deplorable maths, being right 80% of the year means being wrong 20% of the year. 20% would only equal 2 months if there were only 10 months in the year. Obviously the calendars in Ringworld are different to the calenders in the real world! Again we remind readers that teaching mathematics in NZ schools is where Ring used to claim that his real expertise lay, and yet even here, calculating simple percentages, he fails miserably and doesn't even grasp his error when it is pointed out to him, since he is still repeating it, albeit with a slightly different error each time.

     Also in Ring's post he yet again exposes his ignorance as to what is science. He says that 'There are some sciences that are inexact and yet we still call them sciences. They include economics, the human sciences, education, politics, economics, the stock market, farm advisory, sport coaching, weather and medicine. Some may take issue with that list. But practitioners of them all produce opinion products'. Actually no, we don't call them sciences Ken (not even if you write economics two times). Only the likes of astrologers call these things science because they want astrology to be a science too. Let's remember that Ring is on record of arguing that there is also 'toy science, shoe science, theatre science, waterskiing science', as well as 'Creation Science, Christian Science, Scientology and science fiction. Anything can be a science, and one who studies it is a scientist'. He's even argued that dogs, yes dogs, are doing science. Of course Ring will say that 'Some may take issue with that list', especially scientists I would add, because he knows it's utter bullshit, designed to console gullible fools that listening to the silly opinions of astrologers in the 21st century isn't insane at all.

     And yes Rob, it's laughable that Ring thinks he should have the right to edit what the media writes about him and his predictions aka opinions. Such arrogance. He claims that he's often misreported, that reporters 'write what they like and say I said it'. But as you say, Ring struggles to make sense and avoid writing bullshit even when he's doing the editing, as this particular 'guest post' from Ring demonstrates. I would surmise that reporters write exactly what Ring tells them, but he then gets upset and accuses them of false reporting when others point out the flaws in what he said. I know he has on several occasions said to us, 'I never said that', when it is indisputable that he did say it. Ring would deny his own existence to avoid acknowledging that he had made another mistake.

     Everything that Ring writes and conveys just further demonstrates that he has a superficial understanding of science, maths and reality. He doesn't grasp the difference between a doctor's opinion and a soothsayers opinion, he doesn't understand probability or percentages, and he doesn't understand the science of heatwaves or even what science is. That some people trust his silly opinions is as depressing that we still have people believing in witches, gods and demons. To again paraphrase that old saying, 'You can lead a horse to water...', you can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them understand it.

508. Comment by Doug, 23 Mar, 2014

     There is probably a need to put this in a context. The "heatwave" in Dublin was an astonishing 26°C! But a period of elevated temperatures did start on 8th or 9th July (accompanying a rise in pressure from about the 6th) http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EIDW/2013/7/21/MonthlyHistory.html. Maximum temperatures in Cork were 24°C on the 9th, 26°C on the 12th. In the north also on the 12th, in Belfast it got up to 28°C. So Ken Ring did OK in the sense that he seems to have said that there would be a warm period (26-28°C a heatwave?) in Ireland starting on 9 July 2013. But July is historically the hottest month in Ireland, and it is debatable when it started (while the pressure was going up from 6th, the "hot" temperatures started on the 7th or 8th, and the hottest on the 12th) so his timing is iffy. But to predict warm weather in Ireland in the middle of July, which is essentially all that he has done, is hardly a remarkably clever achievement. Ken does occasionally get it right: what he doesn't acknowledge or respond to is the huge number of times that he gets it wrong, or when his predictions are so general and unconstrained in terms of what and when that they are useless.

509. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Mar, 2014

     I agree Doug, predicting warm weather in the hottest month of summer hardly requires the services of an astrologer. And calling 26-28°C a heatwave does seem a little over the top. To me that would just be a nice day.

     Also, I'm sure I've said the same thing myself, but we have to be careful when we say 'Ken does occasionally get it right', since this gives false credit. People often say on a coin toss that they got it right, but this implies that they had some knowledge that allowed them to know which way the coin would land, when actually it was nothing but a guess, a blind fluke. Likewise we probably shouldn't say Ring occasionally gets it right either, again implying that his astrological method has some strengths, when in all likelihood his apparent success was a blind fluke like the coin toss. As they say, even a stopped analogue clock is right twice a day. Until Ring provides evidence that his occasional correct prediction was anything but a guess, we should assume it was just that.

510. Comment by Jamie, 23 Mar, 2014

     Hi John, on 13th March, Ring tweeted: "Heightened earthquake risk for NZ over the next few days, especially on 17th...."

     So, what happened? Nothing out of the ordinary.

     The largest quake GNS reported between 13th and 17th, was a magnitude 4.04 on the 17th (and this was the only quake above mag 4 during those 5 days). According to GNS, NZ has an annual average of 381 quakes of mag 4.0-4.9. That's around one per day. So the period 13th-17th was actually fairly quiet, with only one quake recorded of above mag 4 over those 5 days.

     Then on 17th March, Ring desperately tweets: "4.4M quake LA, + 6.7M Chile, last 24hrs http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/strong-earthquake-hits-los-angeles-688971 Prediction NZ https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/444210311826911232 4M in Napier on 17th and three high-3s"

     It's interesting that he calls his 13th March tweet a "Prediction", not an opinion, potential or any other bullshit, but a "Prediction". Plus, I'm not sure why a 4.4 quake in LA and a 6.7 quake in Chile is relevant? Perhaps Ring can enlighten me? Did he miscalculate the location with his astrological moon-method?

     According to USGS, there are an average of 150 quakes above mag 6 globally per year. That's around one every 2-3 days. So the chances of there being a quake above mag 6 somewhere in the world in the five days between 13th-17th March were very high.

     Here are the significant earthquakes above mag 6 that USGS lists for the last 30 days: (UTC time).
     21st March 6.5 India
     16th March 6.7 Chile
     15th March 6.3 Japan
     11th March 6.4 Sandwich Islands
     10th March 6.8 California
     5th March 6.3 Vanuatu
     2nd March 6.5 Japan
     2nd March 6.2 Nicaragua

     So, a fairly even spread of these throughout the month, as would be expected. Certainly no "clustering" or increased occurrence during the period 13th-17th.

     Ken, you need help.

511. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Mar, 2014

     Jamie, as for Ring calling his tweet a 'prediction' rather than an 'opinion', his rational seems to be that before the fact, when they might come true, they are predictions made by a university trained scientist, but when his predictions fail miserably, they then become merely flawed opinions offered by an unqualified nobody in Auckland with a history of failures.

512. Comment by Ron, 26 Mar, 2014

     Liked how Jamie finished his comment (No 510) re Ken Ring with the statement "Ken, you need help". Wondering what help you were suggesting, psychiatric?? Or..... Perhaps you don't wish to say and I'm not being kind here. However, I do agree with you.

513. Comment by Brian, 16 Apr, 2014

     Not sure if you have caught up on Ken Ring's latest blog John, but if not, it is worth a read if your life has been devoid of humour. It must surely be a joke piece written with Ken's tongue firmly rammed in cheek. If not, and he really believes what he has written, then I despair. Somehow the laws of thermodynamics, accepted physical principles, and easily verifiable and proven physical observations are all wrong and Ken has, in one concise piece, exposed a huge falsehood. Well done Ken.

514. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Apr, 2014

     Yes Brian, Ring's piece would indeed be humorous if it were intended as satire, but unfortunately, every psychiatric assessment thus far undertaken suggests that Ring does indeed believe what he writes. And unless he's prepared to voluntarily try certain psychotropic drugs, his delusions will continue to show through in his writing and interviews.

     As you say, he dismisses 'accepted physical principles, and easily verifiable and proven physical observations', and childishly believes that his fantasy can be explained with the many falsehoods he clings to. He plaintively asks, How can the Moon not be responsible for our weather?, with the same naivety and arrogance that people of his era used to ask, How can the world not be flat, and how can the Sun not go around us? Ring's scam relies on the fact that many people, like Ring himself, prefer simplistic, common sense answers to explain events that often require complex answers that go against common sense. Ring's articles are little different from those of other simple deluded folk who try to convince us that gods and demons are causing natural disasters to punish us for our sins or that secret governments are faking moon landings and poisoning us with chemtrails. But one thing their verbal diarrhoea never produces is evidence to support their claims.

     Ring continually bleat's that modern science is 'a permanently flawed system', and is annoyed with the 'fact that there is no department of astrometeorology at a NZ university'. Astrometeorology is just a sneaky pseudoscientific term to describe the use of astrology to predict the weather, and once astrology is exposed as the core of the method, it is quite clear why Ring's silly belief is not taught at any university worldwide. Although there was a suggestion that the clown college that Homer Simpson attended might have offered it for one semester.

     In his article Ring claims that 'depressions... mostly begin in the cold latitudes where the air is already heavier'. Rubbish. Depression develops when rational, intelligent people are forced to concede that even in this age of advanced knowledge, there are still astrologers mired in medieval nonsense actively conspiring to drag others down to their level of abject ignorance.

     P.S. Just after writing the above, if further evidence is required of the futility of relying on Ring's astrological predictions, the NZ Herald writes that 'Flooding has forced transport officials to close Tamaki Drive in east Auckland... The atrocious conditions are being fuelled by ex-cyclone Ita, which is battering Northland and Auckland as it sweeps down the country'. And yet on scanning Ring's 'Newsletter for April 2014', he offers no warning, he was, as usual, completely oblivious to the weather his spooky cosmos was planning to unleash.

515. Comment by Ron, 10 May, 2014

     Greetings John. Ken Ring has once again delivered his newsletter, this time on the 8th. Should we be suspicious that he also listed on the 8th that a low would be off the west of the Nth Island and in fact there was a low west of cook strait which vanished within a day?

     Again in an ever growing cop-out he tells us longrange weather forecasting is inexact and are estimations, opinions and not expressions of certainties rather potentials for trends as is all such forecasting. These events may not occur, such is the nature of potential. This is all fine and good along with the newsletter but there is a problem. People have to pay Ken for all the opinions, potentials, estimations and uncertainties and to me it is a bloody waste of money for totally useless tripe. Just to stress this yet again I checked today (the 10th) Ken says for here (CH.CH.) rain likely 9th-11th with heaviest falls for the month on the 10th. Today was a pleasant dry sunny May day, yesterday same and no rain for next 3 days at least. Sorry Ken, abject failure number 300,000 plus? I realise forecasting is difficult in a country such as NZ but Ken boasts 20yrs ahead is possible according to the moon. What about shortrange Ken, could you be more accurate then. Doubtful. I would envisage public outrage if Metservice publicly declared their forecasts are just opinions and potential non-events. Yet many of the buying public are paying substantial dosh to Ken for that nonsense without a qualm. I personally find this quite disturbing.

516. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 May, 2014

     As I write this Ron I'm basking in the sun with blue skies, and yet according to Ring it should be raining today. As you say, that in this enlightened age people still throw away good money for Ring's primitive nonsense is quite disturbing. Ring, wallowing in his ignorance, boldly claims that 'The fact that there is no department of "astrometeorology" at a NZ university does not diminish its efficacy'. This is as childish as claiming that just because "crystal ball gazing" is not taught at a NZ university, this does not diminish its efficacy. The fact that there is a large section of society that blindly worships this con-man lends support to the belief that our education system fails many of its students and that the media by chasing profit chooses to entertain rather than inform, and this all contributes to the dumbing down of society. Based on their primitive worldview, clearly the likes of Ring and his acolytes would be much more in tune with their beliefs had they been born in medieval times. Clearly science and reality are much too complex for them, and they reminisce longingly for times when universities did teach astrology and debated how many angels could fit on a pin head. We must ensure that these people are not allowed to influence society's progress. Along with Ring they can believe in ''the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' if they wish, but rational, intelligent, informed people must clearly make all the important decisions in their stead. How quickly our advanced society would collapse if these deluded fools got to replace modern science and technology with superstitious nonsense that was exposed as such centuries ago. They really should try and keep up, but alas, I suspect it is beyond them.

517. Comment by Ron, 12 May, 2014

     Excellent John, your response above is so on the button, excellent. I have to modify slightly my statement about no rain coming for at least 3 days. The forecast has changed with rain now expected tonight (the 12th) and tomorrow morning. Guess I did not allow enough leeway for "skewing". Now he is only 2/3 days out, but to Ken a victory, correct again. Sadly it is not acceptable even though I don't pay him a red cent. However, for those that do and accept these large anomalies that make it very difficult to plan your lifes activities it should be viewed, at the very least, as little short of criminal.

518. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 May, 2014

     Thanks Ron, and this further highlights how stupid his followers are. When Ring predicts the weather for a wedding or festival or holiday weekend, all which must fall on specific days, he continually bleats that we must grant him his '3-4 day window' of error, or even more, since he's on record of stating that 'sometimes a predicted event can be up to a week late'. Worse still, Ring explains that his prediction — sorry, his opinion — could be spot on time-wise but out as far as location goes, writing that it might happen anywhere within a '50-80mile radius geographically' from where your weather dependent event is actually happening. Would the bride planning her big day accept such evasive statements from the celebrant, the photographer or the caterers, that their appearance at her wedding 'can be up to a week late', or that they might get the date right but go to a different city instead? Of course not, so why do brides pay Ring good money to be effectively told, Yes, it should be a nice, sunny day... unless of course it's not. There is little doubt that Ring is a fool, that he sincerely believes that a nice day a week after your special event is no different to it happening on the actual day. He naively thinks he has earned his fee. What surprises me is that there are so many people out there that agree with him, saying to themselves, OK, it might rain on my wedding day (or open day or festival), but if a nice day does turn up a few days later, somewhere, I'll be happy. Were these people all dropped on their heads as babies or what?

     No one would accept such silly opinions that have as much chance of being wrong as correct from airline pilots, lawyers, engineers, doctors, accountants, so why are they prepared to accept them from Ring, and pay for the privilege? Speaking of doctors, I also note in his newsletter that Ring again compares what he does with what doctors do, claiming that they both just offer opinions. He argues that 'No one criticises a doctor... It is the same with weather. Like medicine, weather is an inexact science'. Bullshit. Weather is not even a science let alone an inexact science. When I go out and get wet, I am not being rained on by a branch of science. Perhaps what he means is that meteorology — the study of weather — is an inexact science, which is true in some respects, but we all know that Ring rails against meteorology. We also know that Ring uses astrology and not meteorology to predict the weather, which is akin to using witchcraft or reading chicken entrails. In an attempt to explain his many failures, clearly what Ring is hinting at is that astrology is an inexact science, but again, Ring's medieval thinking fails to reveal that astrology isn't a science either, inexact or otherwise. It's what's known as a pseudoscience, something that has a superficial appearance of being a science, but is nothing but primitive, superstitious nonsense.

     And Ring feels he has a special connection with doctors because he repeatedly reminds us that doctors, like him, used to have to be familiar with astrology. Perhaps you doubt this, but you must remember Ring is talking about doctors of his childhood, that is, medieval doctors. Thankfully doctors long ago realised their mistake and have moved on, Ring hasn't.

519. Comment by Doug, 12 May, 2014

     A pearler from Ken Ring. I'm in an email discussion with Ken about his predictions and methodology. Here is what he wrote — I wonder if he actually reads what he puts on the page sometimes. He had asked me what he should write and this is his response to what I suggested:

     "I agree it would be nice to be able to say "I think that there is potential for heavy rain over the week centred on 10 May somewhere is the greater Canterbury area. However, be aware that most of my opinions about what might happen turn out to be completely wrong." but a tweet does not allow that."

520. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 May, 2014

     I don't think Doug, that he does pay much attention to what he writes, even though history should have taught him that it would be very apt to reread his answers before pressing SEND. He won't openly admit it of course, but there must be some truthful honesty in his admission, that "most of my opinions about what might happen turn out to be completely wrong". He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's not that stupid not to have realised that most of his predictions are indeed wrong. In this unguarded moment he has simply expressed a truth that most people realised long ago. Even the devout Mother Teresa, as she expressed in private letters, finally grasped that god probably didn't exist. And like Mother Teresa and her public persona, he is keeping the embarrassing realisation that he has been promoting a silly belief a secret.

521. Comment by Rob, 19 May, 2014

     Hello, I am in Los Angeles at the moment, and believe I saw an American Ken Ring while on the way to a train station. He was scruffly dressed, and yelling very loudly either direction into a concealed phone, or just his wrist (I didn't want to stare).... "CIA International, perfect weather for landslides and volcanos". I didn't get to hear anymore, as the cross walk man turned green for me to cross, but I really hope he was loony like Ken Ring and didn't have some inside info about volcanos that we should all know.

522. Comment by Ron, 03 Jun, 2014

     Hi there John. Have just returned from a holiday on the sunshine coast north of Brisbane which included the last week of May. I have decided yet again to highlight, for your readers, to put up front, the continual dismal, disgraceful failures of Ken Ring's so called weather predictions. In his May newsletter he stated that overall Queensland would be 152% wetter than normal, that the area where I was in the sth-east would be 182% above. The reality: Brisbane and surrounding areas have had record May temps and not much rain. Bne had the warmest 7 day late autumn stretch in nearly a century. May has been 4-6 degrees above av. and predictions are the 3 mths of winter are to continue exceptionally dry. My days there were simply stunning. More like the tropics. Quite humid and ranging from 25-28 degrees, lots of sun, light winds. Some early showers. Like all our best summer days rolled up together. I wonder how his Aussie clients feel about him. They don't readily tolerate his type of failure stats nor suffer fools gladly.

     Reading his latest website article re. NZ June weather I notice Ken increasingly using the word "possibly". Also another typical wee gem in Ken's inimitable style. During a period in June he states that Hanmer Forest will possibly have low temps. This is so inane that I could get very rude but will resist. What a useless, irrelevant statement!! Is this a revelation of some sort. An alpine type forest in June in NZ's SI surely will get damn cold. How many people will be affected by this warning? He is not talking about a big metropolis here. Really!! Ken, when will you stop. Don't your clients see how childishly poorly written this is. I sure hope any potentials do. GEEZ!!!

523. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Jun, 2014

     Hi Ron. When someone bases their weather predictions, or 'opinions', on a such a silly belief as astrology, it doesn't matter what country they pick, they will, more often than not, be wrong. Whether it's Aussie or Ireland or here in NZ, anyone (with average or above intelligence) that actually compares Ring's predictions with what actually happens on the weather front will quickly realise that he is only guessing, and usually quite badly. But it's not just Ring's nonsense, there are many books in the shops alongside Ring's almanac aimed at people who don't think too deeply about their beliefs, such as Bibles, horoscopes, those written by psychic mediums and those pushing conspiracies and alternative histories. There really are a lot of gullible people out there. I mean, as you say, who but an uninformed moron would think that Ring's prediction of the 'possibility' of low temps in the Hanmer Forest in the middle of winter is anything but pathetic and utterly worthless?

     And since we're discussing Ring, I watched a Horizon science TV documentary the other week that Ring, if he watched it, would have labelled fantasy. Called 'Global Weirding', it looked at claims that our weather is getting more extreme. The program spoke of the hope that investigating and understanding what's happening to the weather will mean that 'prediction will lead to protection'. Helen Chivers, a meteorologist from the British Met Office, then explained that:

     'The point of the weather forecast, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, is getting the extreme weather events, the heavy rainfalls, the high temperatures, the forecasts for those absolutely spot on so people can get the correct warnings in the right time scales so they can take precautions to save themselves if they need to'.

     Of course Ring views meteorologists in the same way that I view witches, but I agree with her assessment. As an ordinary Joe Bloggs it is the extreme weather events that concern me and that I want to have advance warning of, if possible. I don't care whether an unexpected slight drizzle gets my washing a little damp, or whether a possum in the remote Hanmer Forest shivers through a frosty night in winter. But as extreme weather events go, the ones we want to be forewarned of, Ring has a perfect record of missing them all. I can't recall one example of flooding or destructive gale force winds or drought or snow storms etc that Ring has correctly predicted. Not one. But if he can't predict the extreme weather events, and he can't, then who cares if he fluked guessing the weather on that one day back in 1998 when it was a hot day, in the middle of summer. Ring is a little like a guy who predicts not who will win the lottery, but who will lose.

     And speaking of Ring's failed predictions, at the moment I'm reading the book 'Earthquakes in Human History: The Far-Reaching Effects of Seismic Disruptions', and it recounts an incident spookily similar to one played out more recently by Ring. In the USA in 1989 Iben Browning predicted that a catastrophic earthquake would strike the area around New Madrid, the site of powerful quakes in 1811 and 1812. Like Ring, Browning was using the belief that it was gravity and the alignment of the moon and sun that caused earthquakes. He predicted the quake would hit on Dec 2 or 3, 1990, and the media took him seriously, schools were closed in early Dec, the National Guard conducted emergency drills etc. There was, of course, no quake. And Ring of course would repeat this nonsense with several claims that catastrophic earthquakes would again strike Christchurch on various dates following their real earthquakes, which, contrary to what he claims, he failed to predict. And again, his predictions are based on his moon, gravity, astrology beliefs. Some in the media took him seriously, and many citizens fled the region on the dates he predicted. But just as for Browning, there were, of course, no catastrophic quakes. As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

524. Comment by Jamie, 10 Jun, 2014

     Hi John, on 29th May, Ken posted a new article on his website titled "June longrange report for NZ".
     (I have archived a screenshot of this page. As we know, he has been known to edit articles later to try and save face).

     He obviously didn't check the metservice forecast which would have been available 3 days out on 29th May, and I recall it showing a mostly fine outlook for much of the country for the first couple of days in June. Instead he has rain 'likely' in ALL his regions on these days. Of course he was mostly wrong. The only region with any rain was Gisborne.

     As usual, Ken covers about half the month in every region with 'likely' rain days. This got me thinking: How would Ken's picks compare to a completely random toss of a coin? The Coin would also pick roughly half the days too. Surely if Ken had any skill at all in predicting (or whatever he wants to call it today) rain days, then it would be obviously better than the Coin's picks.

     Well, time to find out.

     We're 8 days into the month and The Coin has a success rate of 55.4%. The Ring has a success rate of 44.6%.

     But I guess it's still early days. Perhaps this is a case of The Tortoise and The Hare.

     I'll let you know how the rest of the month pans out.

     P.S. I also note Ken's latest article posted on 5th June is titled "Predictions for under a dollar a day."

     Face-palm.

525. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Jun, 2014

     I'm backing the Coin to come out ahead Jamie, since it clearly has a better grasp on how to predict the weather. I also note that Ring, as per usual, didn't predict the severe storm that hit Auckland last night. At least 9,000 houses without electricity, blown over trees blocking a motorway and a truck blown over and blocking the Auckland Bridge. Oh dear, oh dear, why does he bother? Oh that's right... the money.

526. Comment by Ron, 17 Jun, 2014

     Did you see today some real competition from NIWA for Ken Ring in the form of FarmMet. It is not free but on subscription basis. No need now for farmers to have to contemplate having Ken's silly calendars on their walls. This new service assigns the nearest weather station, up to 300 nationwide, to the farm and tailors a forecast direct to a farmer's computer, tablet or smart phone. Very accurate and detailed, updated every 2 hrs, precise. Can deliver a tailored forecast to a neighbour farm only 12 kms away. There is a high protection factor against what matters ie potentially damaging weather which is where Ring fails badly. Beat that Ken!!!

527. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Jun, 2014

     Yes Ron, I did catch that snippet on the news. No doubt a worried Ken will be furiously consulting the heavens, shocked that he missed the cosmic omen that predicted this arrogant scientific intrusion into the cosy relationship he claims to have with many farmers of medieval mindsets.

528. Comment by Jamie, 19 Jun, 2014

     Hi John, earlier today Ken Ring tweeted:

     "Te Anau 4.4 mag earthquake just now - at exact time of low tide at Milford Sound. The big Chch shakes were also at/almost at low tide. Moon?"

     Ken, once again, relies on his loyal followers not bothering to check his claim that "The big Chch shakes were also at/almost at low tide". Anyway, I thought I'd check on their behalf...

     I used the historical tide chart tool on NIWA's website here. (I set the tide location to New Brighton).

     September 4th 2010 04:35 (7.1 mag): High tide was 5 hrs earlier at 23:35, Low tide was 1hr 12 mins later at 05:47 (ok, pretty close or is it really?).

     February 22nd 2011 12:51 (6.3 mag): High tide was 4hrs 33mins earlier at 08:18, Low tide was 1hr 44 mins later at 14:35 (similar - coincidence?)

     June 13th 2011 14:20 (6.4mag): High tide was 23 mins earlier at 13:57, Low tide was 5hrs 49 mins later at 20:09 (couldn't be more wrong)

     December 23rd 2011 15:18 (6.0 mag): High tide was 21 mins later at 15:39, Low tide was 4hrs 42 mins earlier at 09:36 (again, completely wrong).

     So, with the 4 most devastating earthquakes we experienced in Christchurch, the closest to low tide was by 1hr 12 mins. And 2 of these 4 largest quakes were much closer to High tide than to Low tide.

     What about Ken's "one for the history books" on 20th March (which wasn't actually even in the top 50 largest quakes, and those of us who live in Christchurch and felt it, know it wasn't very big in comparison to many many other aftershocks) ...

     March 20th 2011 21:47 (4.9 mag): High tide was 4hrs 11mins earlier at 17:36, Low tide was 2 hrs 3 mins later at 23:50 (sorry Ken, that's not close enough for me).

     I've come to the conclusion that Ken suffers from Pseudologia fantastica.
529. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Jun, 2014

     Say what? Suffering from Pseudologia fantastica? Them's mighty big words partner, but after looking them up and discovering that it means 'a disorder in which a person consistently lies', your diagnosis appears to be spot on.

     I also decided to check Ring's first claim: 'Te Anau 4.4 mag earthquake just now - at exact time of low tide at Milford Sound'. Using the NIWA link you provided Jamie, apparently the Milford Sound low tide was at 10:11am, and the quake was at 9.44am, so it was NOT 'at exact time of low tide' as Ring claimed. Does Ring not know what the word 'exact' means? Ring can argue that it was closer to a low tide than a high tide, but since Ring has also argued that high tides, mid-tides and low tides are ALL times of potential quakes, this means that we are never further than approximately 90 minutes from one of these tides. So no matter when a quake strikes, Ring can always note that it happened NEAR one of his scary tides.

     But having said this, why did Ring tweet and highlight the low tide connection to the 4.4M quake near Milford Sound and ignore the separate 4.4M quake that was felt in Wellington at 11.04am on the same day? Using the NIWA link, I see that Wellington low tides were at 03:47am and 04:04pm, nowhere near the quake time, which was much nearer a high tide of 09:56am. Clearly he suppressed information on the Wellington quake because he had already tweeted the connection of quakes to low tides, and was afraid that even his dimwitted followers might have smelt a rat: 'Hey, wait a minute... didn't you say earlier that low tides cause quakes, now you're saying it's high tides? Are you just making this up?'

     And let's look at his statement where he naively connects the Moon to the quakes with no evidence whatsoever: 'The big Chch shakes were also at/almost at low tide. Moon?' I mean seriously, this is as childish as me saying: 'I can't find my car keys. Gremlins?'

     At the moment I'm reading a book by Hank Davis entitled 'Caveman Logic: The Persistence of Primitive Thinking in a Modern World', and Ring and his gaggle of followers typify this caveman logic perfectly. For example, Davis writes:

     'We see the face of the Virgin Mary staring up at us from a grilled cheese sandwich and sell the uneaten portion of our meal for $37,000 on eBay. While science offers a wealth of rational explanations for natural phenomena, we often prefer to embrace the fantasies that reassured our distant ancestors. And we'll even go to war to protect our delusions against those who do not share them.'

     Modern society has more knowledge of the world now than we have ever had, and yet Thog Ring and his fellow troglodytes elect to stay mired in superstition. The outlook is bleak as our media place more focus on profit and pandering to the nonsense and mystery that Thog and others crave.
530. Comment by Jamie, 29 Jun, 2014

     Hi John, I saw this article today and was wondering if Ken's leeway for error extends far enough?

     The Press: Praying for snow on closed slopes

     Versus...

     PredictWeather: Winter for Christchurch

     "JUNE

     June will be an unusually cool month for Canterbury and average to drier north of Christchurch, but wetter than average from Rakaia southwards. In the second half of the month polar outbursts and snow to low levels may drop temperatures below the average.

     1st : first chance of light snowfalls for Christchurch. The diminishing high tide may bring mixing of floating ice with water.

     5th and 12th: more snow and with strong winds. Ice may block drains and prevent quick drainage. The 13th is full moon and southern declination, and the 15th brings the seventh closest perigee and the kingtide.

     22nd-26th : the beginning of Christchurch's coldest spell of winter. Four days of snow may be followed by a week of frosts. Wind chill adds to cold. From 23-30 June may be the coldest week of the year."

     Oh, and by the way, stay tuned for my final results in "Ken vs Coin". Only a couple of days left.
531. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 30 Jun, 2014

     I wonder Jamie, if Ring wears a disguise when going out so that an annoyed public don't accost him over his continual failures? You can imagine the same question each time he goes to the supermarket: So Ken, what happened to that weather you predicted? Was the Moon off doing something else?

     And he seems to be ensuring his 'Error factor' disclaimer is more prominently displayed these days. The one that begins: 'As always, weather is an inexact science and longrange estimations are opinions and not expressions of certainties'.

     Just opinions? Yeah right! To make his 'Error factor' disclaimer clearer and more accurate, I believe Ring should insert something like the following after that sentence:

     'And by opinions I mean, as per the dictionary definition, a belief or conclusion held with confidence, in this case by an astrologer, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. I also feel obliged to point out that history has clearly shown that my past opinions turned out to be nothing but ill-informed guesses, and this embarrassing failure needs to be accounted for when considering the 'Error factor' of my future opinions.

532. Comment by Ron, 01 Jul, 2014

     Hi John. Further to Jamies piece about Ken Rings failed prediction of the last week of June in Christchurch being frigid and laced with a polar blast , snow and severe frosts, is how totally wrong it was, not just partly. The reality here, taking into account it is winter, was that things panned out almost 100% opposite. In that week just gone we had 1 frost of only minus 1 degree, only 1 period of rain and amazing temperatures, highs ranging from 13 to 18 degrees culminating in yesterdays beautiful sunny shirtsleeves only 18 degree day. It was 12 at 6am!!! This failure speaks volumes but undaunted Ken still predicts a very similar scenario for the 2nd week of July. Again we have one of his weird mini weather pockets predicted for the 27th July, possible high temperatures for Henderson, the NW suburb of Auckland. High temps in July and only in Henderson??? Meantime he tells us new subscribers to his newsletter increases at the rate of 100 per month. So they can read that sort of writing/prediction standard? But things are abuzz at Ken Ring Ltd. He mentions excitement that his calendars are heading to Ireland soon as they have been a hit. He continues to be invited to appear on TV shows in Australia and Ireland and radio in general are treating them very kindly. And, get this, Ken is doing a magic astronomy show for primary/intermediate schools with comedy info. and illusions. I can sure identify with that illusion bit. So business is booming, the 2015 almanacs are coming with their valueless info. Life is good. I wonder why I feel nauseous at times. It must be that gut wrenching frustration that comes from the awesome gullibility of people, even in 2014. Oh, no need to wait for NIWA or Metservice. Ken tells us Xmas day and boxing day this year will be wet for the north island and some showers for the south. So there you have it from the horses mouth 6 mths in advance. Based on his last week of June I would rate credibility for this prediction as a big fat zero. There are more great writings on motor vehicle emissions and volcanic eruptions not altering the climate at all, long term. Gee Whiz!!! And earthquakes!! Ken lists many larger quakes worldwide for June, focusing on the 2 4.4's in NZ. and their correlation to the moon and, yes, Pluto. Thing is all those quakes were perfectly normal and to be expected for any given month. He talks about the moon moving "faster". What does that mean? This fact plus a potent alignment of the sun, mercury and earth was behind all the largest Christchurch quakes and more is to come. These factors are coming together again to the east coast, not the west, on the deadly dates of Aug 7, Oct 14 and Dec 8 so be warned. What would we do without dear Ken

533. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Jul, 2014

     Yes Ron, Ken Ring's July Newsletter arrived in my inbox this morning too, and it is frustrating and annoying my Internet Provider's spam checker. Presumably it has a level of artificial intelligence, since it does an admirable job of recognising spam, scams and malicious emails and diverting them into the trash. Then along comes Ken Ring's email and the spam checker wisely flicks it straight into the trash, but I say that I want it, that I actually requested it. Clearly concerned it argues with me, 'John, trust me, this is pure spam, nonsense, bullshit of the highest order, it must be trashed!' I try and explain that I just want to read it for a laugh, but it's clearly suspicious, fearful that I have been sucked into Ring's pseudoscience. Every month I get this argument, as my spam checker tries valiantly to save me from Ken Ring. With its impressive but still limited artificial intelligence it just can't understand why anyone would consider reading Ken Ring's comments, even for a laugh. It's quite scary that a computer can see through Ken Ring but many supposedly more intelligent humans can't.

     And yes, I too noticed that beyond his silly predictions aimed at adults, he's now taking a page from the religious play book and trying to brainwash children before they develop good reasoning skills. He writes:

     Astronomy show
     Because there appears to be a gap in the curriculum for this, I have put together a magic astronomy show for primary and intermediate age schoolchildren in NZ schools. It combines comedy, information and illusions in order to teach the comparative sizes and positions of planets of the cosmos. So far the show has been well received by teachers and pupils. If any NZ schools in the Auckland area are interested in a 60-minute interactive show, please contact ken...

     What sensible school would hire an astrologer to explain astronomy to their pupils? Are our teachers today so poorly trained that they can't teach astronomy, and worse still, can't tell the difference between astrology and astronomy? It's bad enough that we have the religious trying to gain access to school science classes, and at times succeeding, but now we have an astrologer advocating to have astrology taught in schools. We have creationism and Intelligent Design promoted in far too many schools, at the expense of evolution, do we really want more nonsense feed to children? Ring saying that he's 'put together a magic astronomy show' is little different to the Intelligent Design crowd saying that they offer a 'religious science show'. Magic and astronomy no more go together than do religion and science. Certainly illusions are crucial to magic and religion, but the illusions that Ring will be teaching these children will be the bogus information he will be passing off as scientific knowledge. Ring has an abysmal knowledge of science, and astronomy in particular, and repeatedly argues that scientists and astronomers are mistaken and don't know what they're talking about, insisting that they are 'frauds and liars'.

     Ring has argued that stars are rocks, that the Moon is a planet, that it doesn't rotate, that 'Hindi astrologers of old' discovered Pluto, that 'Constellations are really declination-energy roadmaps', and that he uses 'the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' in his work. And since he says his magic astronomy show will 'teach the comparative sizes and positions of planets of the cosmos', we should remind people that he gets that wrong as well. We've already highlighted his ignorance of the very subject that he claims to be an expert in, here's a quote from his article 'Planets and Earthquakes'. 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. And he wants to teach his illusions to children. Shame on the teachers and schools that have apparently already let him into their schools.
534. Comment by Jamie, 01 Jul, 2014

     Hi John, I've attached the final results of my "Ken vs Coin" experiment.

     To summarise:

     Ken posted this article on 29th May: "June longrange report for NZ"

     In the article he names days of the month which his 'moon method' has foretold that rain is likely. He also names dates to expect the heaviest rain.

     I've recorded these days on the left hand column for each region.

     Next, I used the 'coin flipper' on random.org's website here: http://www.random.org/coins/?num=1&cur=60-aud.1dollar to flip a coin for each day of each region. If the coin flip was Heads, then I recorded a rain day in the middle column. If the flip was Tails I recorded a dry day in the middle column.

     Finally, I recorded the actual rain/dry days as shown on the metservice website. (note: If the reading was 0.2mm or under, I recorded this as a dry day). (Click to view larger image)

     The results:

     Ken's accuracy = 50.8%
     Coin's accuracy = 51.7%

     Ken also named 16 'heaviest' rain days. 14 of these days had no rain at all.

     Ring's method was worse than the toss of a coin.

     I've copied Ken into this email. Perhaps he'd like to explain what went wrong in June?

535. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Jul, 2014

     Excellent work Jamie. Clearly Ring should start simply tossing a coin to make his predictions. It would see him being more accurate, although still crap and worthless. And it would be much, much easier and quicker. Zeus knows how many hours he spends at the kitchen table poring over his astrology charts. As for him coming along and explaining why a simple coin toss does a better job at predicting the weather than him, you may have heard the saying about hell freezing over?

     Expecting an astrologer to admit his failures is like me expecting to receive a call right now from Jesus explaining where he's been. ... [Long expectant pause] ... Nope, nothing.

536. Comment by Zafir, 02 Jul, 2014

     Hi John, just wanted to say two thumbs up to Jamie.
     Clear, concise and devastating.

537. Comment by Jamie, 09 Jul, 2014

     Hi John, Ken has removed the link to the "June longrange report for NZ" article from his website. The article still exists but is not listed anywhere on his site. It appears to have been brushed under the cyber-carpet. I wonder why.

538. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Jul, 2014

     Well Jamie, so much for your hope that Ring might actually front up and defend his prediction method. The clear implication is that he has no answers and has chosen to instead fall back on defensive methods he has used extensively in the past to counter his critics — editing or shrouding the evidence of his failures. I'm disappointed that's Ring's answer is invariably to always hide the bodies, lock the doors and draw the curtains, but I can't say I'm surprised,

539. Comment by Jamie, 18 Jul, 2014

     Hi John. I'll keep it brief this time. No need for charts with month-long analysis...

     Ken's tweet on July 10th:
     "Next potential of snow for Christchurch (updated). :23 July onwards then 1st-5th and 12th-14th of August"

     versus

     Reality on July 18th: "Snow and rain chills Canterbury"

     Fail.

540. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Jul, 2014

     He's a sucker for punishment isn't he Jamie? Humiliation doesn't seem to faze him. He must think that if he makes enough predictions he'll eventually fluke one, which he'll vigorously promote on the radio while hiding all his failures, well aware that his deluded followers will never check. Of course we'll know, but we don't buy his products.

     And maybe it's stating the obvious, but Ring also failed (as per usual) to predict the storm in the second week of July that caused devastating floods in Northland. Taken completely unawares, Ring tweeted on Jul 8, the day the storm began, that he expected a 'Storm due to moon's perigee in few days time'. But note what he doesn't say, no hint of where he expects this storm to strike! Although I must admit that he helpfully added that, 'Extreme weather is international'. Well, that narrows it down a bit I suppose, at least we know it's somewhere on the planet. But apparently he must have then heard on the news that a storm had struck Northland, and embarrassed by his previous tweet that all would be calm for a few days yet, he then flicks off another tweet to pretend he had predicted this storm: 'Wild weather in North Island not over yet... Winter perigees always bad news but bring snow'. Ahhhh, no Ken, they brought rain, and lots of it. Northland did not have a problem with snow.

     I also noted in his tweets the following assertion, which again shows up his gross ignorance of science:

     Ken Ring @kenringweather
     Jul 4
     The cold snap in the past few days is typical of annual aphelion, the day the sun is furthest from earth for year. In 2014 it was on 3 July.

     Ring's implication is that aphelion causes cold snaps, the logic being that cold, wintry weather happens because the Earth is further from the Sun than we are in summer, and we receive less heat energy. It all sounds plausible to the man on the street or to an astrologer, but let's look at what's happening in the Northern Hemisphere. While we're in winter, the U.S. is having its summer, and when the Earth reaches perihelion, when it's closet to the Sun in its orbit, the U.S. goes into winter, and we go into summer. Again, if summer and winter were caused simply by being close to the Sun and then further away respectively, the entire planet would have winter at the same time, not just one hemisphere while the other had the opposite season. So clearly the varying distance between the Earth and the Sun is not what causes the seasons. It's actually the tilt of the Earth's axis that is the main cause of our seasons, our cold snaps are not caused by the Earth being at aphelion as Ring so naively believes. It's bad enough that many people don't know what causes the seasons, but even worse that Ring then fulls their head with bullshit, dragging them down to his level of medieval ignorance.
541. Comment by valued associate, 24 Jul, 2014

     In your article you stated "Weather is what happens on a specific day at a specific place, whereas climate is a description of the conditions that characteristically prevail in a particular region during a particular period".

     I have to admit there has been much confusion over the word 'climate' the past decade or so to the point where the word (as a symbol) has been confused with global warming or climate change. I must take exception to your recent alteration of the concept of climate and will promote the original Scottish manifestation from Etymology Online:

     climate (n.) late 14c., "horizontal zone of the earth," Scottish, from Old French climat "region, part of the earth," from Latin clima (genitive climatis) "region; slope of the Earth," from Greek klima "region, zone," literally "an inclination, slope," thus "slope of the Earth from equator to pole," from root of klinein "to slope, to lean" (see lean (v.)).

     The angle of sun on the slope of the Earth's surface defined the zones assigned by early geographers. Early references in English, however, are in astrology works, as each of the seven (then) climates was held to be under the influence of one of the planets. Shift from "region" to "weather associated with a region" perhaps began in Middle English, certainly by c.1600.

     So you see climate is a description for nothing more than the angle the sun strikes the surface of the earth and climate changes seasonally. Climate has nothing at all to do with weather.

     I hope this helps you in your endeavors to educate the world and thank you for your perspective.

542. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Jul, 2014

     Did you know that Shirley, Carol and Leslie were all originally boys' names? So I think we can run into problems when we try and force a word's original meaning onto its modern usage. You talk of the climate in the modern sense being 'confused with global warming or climate change' and say that 'Climate has nothing at all to do with weather'. I think that this is going too far. Certainly we argue that climate and weather are not the same thing, as Ken Ring asserts they are, but weather is still intimately connected to climate, and climate is certainly what is referred to when climate change is discussed. My encyclopedia defines climate as:

     'The average weather conditions in an area over a long period of time, taking into account temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, atmospheric pressure, and other phenomena. The major factor governing climate is latitude; this is modified by one or more secondary factors including position relative to land and water masses, altitude, ocean currents, topography, prevailing winds, and prevalence of cyclonic storms. The earth is divided into climatic zones based on average yearly temperature and average yearly precipitation.'

     Note especially the mention of 'average weather conditions in an area over a long period of time', showing the connection between weather and climate. But you're correct that 'the angle the sun strikes the surface of the earth' is very important, with them noting that: 'The major factor governing climate is latitude'.
543. Comment by Zafir, 26 Jul, 2014

     Hi John. This is worth a look,

     http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/06/24/climate-vs-weather/

     It looks at the quote "The climate is what you expect; the weather is what you get." This appears to have been misattributed to Mark Twain.

     The difference (and relationship) between climate and weather has been understood to mean, pretty much what we take it to mean, for at least 127 years.

     I think of attributes of weather such as temperature, rainfall etc. as data points and climate as long term patterns in the data.

     That's why I liked Jamie's Coin vs Ken so much. Based on the data I will advise replacing Ken's almanacs with the humble coin.

544. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Jul, 2014

     Thanks for the link Zafir. I like that quote. And even if Mark Twain didn't produce it, he has plenty of others that rightly make him famous, and like you and I both, he would I'm quite sure also have recommended a simple coin toss over Ring's astrological nonsense. Isn't it frustrating that someone who wrote over a hundred years ago and didn't have access to 21st century knowledge still understood the world better than Ken Ring and his followers?

545. Comment by Mike, 26 Jul, 2014

     About 40 years ago a high school teacher congratulated me for answering "What's the difference between climate and weather?" with "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get". Now of course my middle aged memory may be gilding the lilly on that....as memory sometimes does....but IMO it's still true ....and always was.

546. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Jul, 2014

     It's bad enough that the ill-informed man on the street discussing the weather and climate change believes that weather and climate are the same thing, but that a self-proclaimed expert like Ken Ring does likewise truly exposes his ignorance. Of course it's great that people are willing to engage in these discussions, but I just wish they'd read a reputable book or two first, rather than just going with what they were saw in some silly disaster movie or had heard Ken Ring say on talk-back radio.

547. Comment by Anonymous-16, 27 Jul, 2014

     Finally Ken concurs that global warming is happening, in his latest Yahoo opinion offering 'Global warming may not be so bad'. he does have a strange lists of benefits in his rosy fairy tale telling of a cosy warmer future, that omits things like increased spread of disease (heatstroke, Ebola, Malaria, Nile fever etc.), and severe crop loss in the tropics due to extreme temperature and droughts. He overlooks the recent tipping point of Antarctic melt that he must have missed in his daily scan of the news. He does finally admit that it is happening, is it becoming too obvious now for even him to continue to deny ?

548. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Jul, 2014

     OMG! Has Hell frozen over and no one told me, or has Ken Ring been taken over by aliens? As unlikely as that seems, it still seems more likely than that Ken would suddenly, albeit it subtly, start to acknowledge that global warming is even possible, let alone actually happening. But as you say, he has a 'strange lists of benefits in his rosy fairy tale telling of a cosy warmer future', many that don't make sense or that would contradict other events, while completely ignoring the negative effects. He says a warmer climate will see polar ice increase, rather than melt, that malaria used to be widespread when the world was colder, and that there will be more agriculture as humans move into higher latitudes, ignoring the fact that in parts of the world that are already hot, agriculture will cease as the world warms. Typically Ring is quite naïve in his view of what global warming might mean, highlighted by his childish question: 'What's wrong with a better climate?'. His last paragraph is entitled: 'Let's work towards a warmer world', the clear implication being that Ring now accepts that the actions of man can not only affect the climate, but that we should be deliberately doing what we can to heat the world up and make it a better place.

549. Comment by Jamie, 14 Aug, 2014

     Hi John, so it's now the 14th August, 4 days after the latest 'Supermoon' event. Of course Ken was frantically tweeting his nonsense in the lead up...

     "Ken Ring @kenringweather Jul 24
     Earthquake risk period
     7-12 August
     Closest moon for 2014, plus Earth-Sun-Merc.
     Expect to affect central and SW of NZ."

     "Ken Ring @kenringweather Aug 2
     Significant shakes over following week, Indonesia to Kermadecs. NZ risk in east, also likely whale strandings. Focus 10 August +/-few days"

     So what actually happened? Nothing out of the ordinary.

     Keep trying 'Moon-Man'. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

550. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Aug, 2014

     Hi Jamie. History has untold examples of idiots, of people that just couldn't grasp how the world worked, even after having viewed the evidence. How many times will his irrational fear of the Moon compel him to go forth with his silly proclamations that the end is nigh?

     Earthquake wise, he believed the latest 'Supermoon' event would 'affect central and SW of NZ'. How does this even make any sense? The Moon is equally over the whole of NZ, so why would its gravity only affect a small part of it? Ring has consistently refused to explain why the Moon picks on parts of NZ and ignores the rest, and frankly I'm not even sure he grasps the problem with his predictions. Immersing himself in astrology has brought about a medieval mindset that apparently limits what he can comprehend, but the really worrying thing is that there are many others out there, all on Ring's mailing list, that blindly believe that Ring actually makes sense when he tweets his predictions, or as he calls them, opinions, silly opinions that he really should keep to himself. Or if he can't stop himself, at the very least support them with reason and evidence.

551. Comment by Jamie, 14 Aug, 2014

     Hi John, I noticed in Ken's article "Predictions for under a dollar a day", he writes under the heading 'Advertising Standards Authority':

     "In NZ we have a useful publicly funded government agency, the Advertising Standards Authority.........taxpayers' funds were used up in the conduct of an inquiry that gave our website positive publicity on the front page of the national newspaper."

     This is bullshit. The ASA is industry funded, not tax-payer funded.

     Another example of Ken's chronic case of pseudologia fantastica.

552. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Aug, 2014

     Yes Jamie, typical Ken Ring and typical huckster, never letting the facts get in the way of his fantasies. I read in one of their own documents that 'The ASA receives funding from the advertising industry via subscriptions and levies'. Claiming that he was 'vindicated' by a 'a government-level inquiry' obviously strokes Ring's delusions of grandeur.

     And he also falsely claims that information about his 'win' was on 'the front page of the national newspaper', apparently arrogantly assuming that this newspaper is the one read by everyone, that it is the 'national newspaper'. NZ does not have a 'national newspaper'.

     Ring also falsely implies that the ASA ruled that it was 'a trivial and petty complaint', when they said nothing of the sort, and that its source was 'the government's Victoria University'. Ring claims that the complaint was made 'on behalf of the university system', when it was in fact from an individual who was merely employed at the university [See next comment]. I also note that Ring provides two links to supposedly support his claims, but neither link takes you to information on the ASA decision. The ASA decision can be found here, where Ring tearfully tells the ASA that they will be 'bully-bashing those expressing a differing opinion' if they find against him. We've already commented more fully on the ASA decision here, arguing that it was a badly flawed decision.

553. Comment by Doug, 15 Aug, 2014

     Actually John, you have some facts wrong. I made the complaint. I do not and never have worked for a University except as a student. But Ken has shown some desperate cunning too — taking advantage of the ASA not being willing or able to get into a scientific argument, so they sort of let it lie with a buyer beware warning. However, he significantly changed his webpage to remove or modify some of the things I complained about where he was telling porkies. I put in three complaints and he acknowledged, by changing his site, that I was correct in two of these. Actually, if you read the ASA document it shows Ken to be the bully, and the ASA to be fairly gutless by not insisting that if he cannot verify something then it should be removed. They do not seem to recognise that one lucky guess is not evidence and that thousands of wrong redictions/guesses/indications (or whatever he calls them now in order to try and cover his arse) do indicate that his guesses are worthless as way of having any confidence in what is going to happen be it with the weather or earthquakes.

     I am probably going to make further complaints when I can be bothered. Your readers should give it a go as well, it is easily done via the ASA website, Ken give heaps of ammunition, and it seems to upset him mightily so that he spends heaps of time responding which must interfere with his ability to continue deceiving people.

554. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Aug, 2014

     Hi Doug. Sorry about my error re Victoria University, but since I know Ken and you have been debating his method, and he referred to your profession in his ASA submission, I innocently assumed that there probably was a university connection as he claimed. But that said, my point was that your complaint was made as an individual, and not 'on behalf of the university system' as Ring falsely claimed. The fact is that you don't work for Victoria University, but it wouldn't matter even if you did. Ring is deliberately lying — again — to make it appear that there is a government conspiracy to silence him. It's unbelievable really, is he utterly incapable of telling the truth?

     I agree that Ring was compelled to modify his website in order to mollify the ASA committee, but the changes that were made were all rather vague if, unlike you and I, one doesn't view the before and after claims or understand the problems with the claims that Ring makes. The problem is that almost no one will read the full ASA deliberation, and even if they do it is deeply flawed, instead they will form their view based on what was reported in the simplistic media and what bullshit Ring writes on his website. Reading the ASA decision reveals an ignorant, whining fool that is able to confuse a committee that is clearly no more sophisticated than he is.

     As you say, of course Ring is the bully, even though he accuses all his critics of bullying him, he childishly confuses genuine criticism with bullying. Then the ASA lets Ring continue to push his nonsense by simply issuing a 'buyer beware warning'. In their decision they claim that their role 'was not to be an arbiter of scientific fact', which seems to be an admission that they know nothing about scientific facts, therefore they decided that it was the public's job to decide whether Ring was telling the truth in his advertising claims. Clearly the ASA is a waste of time and money, happy to rule on things like nudity and swearing in ads, which as we all know are very harmful, but unwilling to make a call on scientific matters such as whether an astrologer can predict the weather.

     On his website where Ring falsely claims that the ASA is a 'publicly funded government agency', where he falsely claims that the complaint came from 'the government's Victoria University', where he falsely claims that it was made 'on behalf of the university system', where he falsely claims that you work for Victoria University, and where he falsely implies that the ASA ruled that it was 'a trivial and petty complaint', he also writes the following:

     'If anyone takes issue with anything on this website arising from a misunderstanding on their part or something on our part poorly worded, we would welcome that they first raise the matter with us... If it is within our power we will do our best to accommodate any and all complainants and make changes if appropriate and reasonable.'

     Thus I have raised the matter with him via email as requested, making him aware of this discussion, and hopefully forcing him to consider these clear errors on his part and that he has omitted to mention to the reader that your complaint forced him to edit his earlier claims. Note however how arrogant and limited this willingness to make changes is on Ring's part. Ring assumes that any claim we might take issue with is because we misunderstand his claims, not because they wrong. We can't evidently complain about claims that Ring has misunderstood, only claims that we have misunderstood. Other claims that Ring makes and that we might have an issue with can never be wrong, they can only be 'poorly worded'. But if we generously assume that the above issues are not deliberate lies, and are due to a misunderstanding on Ring's part, and not ours, he is under no compulsion to change them. He even says changes will only be made 'If it is within our power', as if someone other than Ken Ring controls what appears on his website. He says he will 'make changes if appropriate and reasonable'. I would have thought that removing falsehoods regarding the person that made a complaint against him, regarding the organisation that actioned that complaint, and honestly revealing the changes made due to that complaint, would be entirely appropriate and reasonable.

     UPDATE (18 Aug): Having approached Ken Ring regarding errors on his site, as he requested, he hasn't replied to my email but I note he has made subtle changes.

     He has cunningly changed the phrase 'publicly funded government agency' to 'a government-associated agency', so his implication is that the government is still in charge, so not really a change at all. He has changed the claim: 'taxpayers' funds were used up' to the claim that 'public funds were used up', which again means the same thing, so no change. Who does he think he is fooling? His gullible clients I guess. Ring has altered his assertion that the complaint came 'from one of the government's Victoria University (Wellington) earth-scientists' to now simply claim that it came from 'a government earth-scientist'. He is still claiming that the complaint came from someone working for the government, with the implication that the complaint is made on behalf of the government, and yet the documentation that Ring himself provided in evidence to the ASA apparently shows that the complainant does not work for the government. He also edited the phrase 'front page of the national newspaper' to now read 'front page of New Zealand's national newspaper', which shows that he's apparently still under the delusion that NZ has a national newspaper.

     One crucial piece of text that he didn't edit was his utterly devious implication that the ASA viewed the complaint as 'trivial and petty'. Worse still, rather than admit that he had been forced to make changes by the ASA investigation, in his edited text he has now added the claim: 'We were exonerated from any accusation of wrong-doing'. Ring has edited his bogus claims but has essentially kept them conveying the same untruths. And it's strange that for years Ring has embraced the conspiracy theory that the government is out to destroy his business, and yet he finds no contradiction that 'a government-associated agency' is now coming out on his side.

     He even now crows that 'the exercise gave our service much free national publicity... It was advertsing [sic] worth thousands of dollars that we could never afford ourselves'. Clearly this is Ring warning people that if they are silly enough to criticise him then we will foolishly only be boosting his public standing, so our best policy would be just to keep quiet and hope he soon retires. Sorry Ken, this would be like ignoring your local pedophile Catholic priest, naively hoping that he stops on his own accord. That's not going to happen. The public must be made aware of the people out there telling them lies. There will always be organisations that hinder the truth getting out, such as the ASA and the Vatican, but we can't let them intimidate us into silence.

555. Comment by Jamie, 25 Aug, 2014

     Hi John, I feel it is my duty to report Ken's misses as loudly as he himself reports his 'hits'. So here's the latest:

     Ken tweeted on 19th August, "Chances of seismic activity next 3 days central NZ, possibly early morning, warned about two months ago. Take care. http://predictweather.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/r/8AE72A6F8E0789A92540EF23F30FEDED"

     Notice how he says "...warned about two months ago", as if this gives his prediction more weight. A subtle trick, similar to tricks used by psychics when cold-reading.

     It's now the 25th August. I've had a look at Geonet quake search here: http://quakesearch.geonet.org.nz/

     I'll give Ken a day either side of his 3 day window, so have set the search dates to 19th August - 23rd August. The biggest recorded quake during this time was a 3.6 mag at a depth of 276km, 130 km north of White Island. So, actually a very quiet 5 days indeed.

     I'd call that a fail.

     I also note that Ken's moon method (unless he forgot to tell us) has failed to predict 3 significant earthquakes worldwide in the last 24 hours. A 6.4 in Chile, a 6.0 in Northern California and a 6.9 in Peru.

556. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Aug, 2014

     Quite right Jamie, to determine if Ring's method works people need to see how all his predictions turn out, not just the odd vague one that he wants to publicise. He warns about 'Chances of seismic activity next 3 days central NZ' when realistically there is ALWAYS a chance of seismic activity occurring, just as there is always a chance of rain or a chance that I might win Lotto. And in any case, as you point out, after Ring issues his warning, nothing untoward happens. But worse still, he then completely misses those 3 significant earthquakes in Chile, Northern California and Peru.

     Your comparison of Ring's tricks to those used by silly psychics is quite apt. They are all devious fraudsters pushing nonsense to deluded fools. To sooth his troubled conscience, Ring probably uses the argument that stupid people are just asking to have their money taken from them.

557. Comment by Doug, 27 Aug, 2014

     I copied Jamie's comments to Ken. Here is his response — someone may want to check if he did indicate prior to any event that something was likely.

     "Well it's the old story of finding what you seek. You seem to have it fixed in your mind that my theories are incorrect, so you continue to seek evidence of that. You do not want the disappointment of finding my theories hold water. But it is just as easy to find merit, so what you say says more about you and academic jealousy than anything about my work. Have you ever heard of live and let live? You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems that in your mental world I am not entitled to mine. You do not have to read my work. You choose to and that is on you, not me.

     As regards the 6.1mag and 6.0mag California earthquakes on 24 August and the 7mag in Peru yesterday, I pointed the finger of blame at apogee. On the 24th the apogee was at 6.10am UTC. At that time the moon was exactly on the opposite side of the earth to California , 12 hours away. The California shake was 4 hours later. New moon was yesterday. Apogee is the day the moon is furthest away for the month and can behave like a lunar neap tide. At northern declination (on 20th) the moon slows down, and it slows even further on apogee. The aspects that the moon makes take longer to form and separate.

     At apogee the moon has a smaller amount of Kinetic Energy, or energy of motion. It has more Potential Energy and is like an extended lever out into space. Lever dynamics is about magnifying forces back at the shorter end. Imagine a pup tent with ropes from the end poles pegged to the north and south. Apogee and perigee are like these opposing ropes. Each rope keeps the other in tension and balance. Each supplies both KE and PE Relaxing one gives energy to the other. The relative absence due to apogee can allow pressure to build deep within the earth and in this case from the opposite hemisphere.

     In terms of stress-building on our electromagnetic field, we had, as well as Earth-moon-sun alignment which is New Moon, other alignments going on in the time frame I suggested. They were: Neptune-Earth-Merc, Mars-Earth-Uranus, Earth-Ven-Jup. Three good alignments featuring Earth at the same time as both apogee and new moon are an earthquake breeder. My tweets were from analysis of that.

     There have been other large earthquakes in the past few days around the globe following my tweet warning of 20-22nd. Also my July free newsletter suggested the 20-22 August as earthquake risk dates, always plus or minus a few days either side. One always allows this in this kind of inexact science and I would say big shakes on the 24th were well within my range and therefore were accurate. Thankfully NZ only got small ones, but they were numerous, with over a dozen in the period.

     I don't understand your comment "about the money". I have never made a cent from earthquakes. Those who do make money from them are geologists, media, assessors, insurance companies, contractors etc. Why is that wrong? Are you also against people making money from snow, from rain and from sunshine? Do you persecute umbrella manufacturers for taking advantage of unsettled conditions? Why is it that ways of making money are so upsetting to you and yet if I do something free, like earthquake investigation and risk suggestions, this is also a source of your stress?

     And I have never made predictions in hindsight. All my tweets were before the 4 large Christchurch earthquakes, giving people time to prepare. The tweet dates were 7 September, (for perigees of February and March), 14 February (for 22 February), 28 February (for 20 March) and 11 June (for 13th).

     The work I do is to help people get prepared for potential eventualities. I repeat that there is no need to read it if you don't like it. Do you not think a world that only allowed the printing of opinions approved by you would be rather boring?."

558. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Aug, 2014

     So, challenged as to why he missed some major quakes (again), Ring once again hits the keyboard. He begins by trying to mislead people by talking about 'academic jealousy', the implication being that he wants us to view him as an academic. As an ex-maths teacher and ex-professional clown with no degree to his name and who earns a living using astrology to predict the weather, earthquakes and the stranding of whales, this does not make him an academic. He appears to believe that if he debates his astrology with an academic, this somehow makes him an academic. He definitely should avoid debating his silly beliefs with a lesbian or a serial killer.

     But in reality Ring does not want to debate his work, like the pope he simply wants us to submit totally to his will or go to Hell. Realising all is lost he pleads (for the umpteenth time), 'Have you ever heard of live and let live?... You do not have to read my work'. But we enjoy a laugh Ken! You can almost feel the tears welling up as he writes. Totally lost as to how he might defend his astrology, Ring doesn't want to be drawn into a real debate with its embarrassing insistence on data and evidence, so he argues that it's not about defending his method, he merely wants to be left alone with his opinions. Retreating from the glare of skeptical inquiry he again falls back on the accusation that anyone who questions his claims is simply being a bully: 'You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems that in your mental world I am not entitled to mine'. Ring can't grasp that critics of his prediction method are challenging his commercial and very public promotion of astrology as a rival to mainstream science, not his right to hold an opinion. He goes on, 'I repeat that there is no need to read it if you don't like it. Do you not think a world that only allowed the printing of opinions approved by you would be rather boring?' Again, we skeptics are not trying to silence Ring as he so tearfully suggests, we merely want him to act like the academic he pretends to be and defend his public claims. He starts off talking of his 'theories', but he refuses to offer any evidence that they are actually scientific theories rather than just ignorant assertions based on primitive beliefs. But note how quickly his 'theories' morph into mere opinions. Opinions that he would prefer the rest of us would either embrace wholeheartedly or ignore altogether. There is no middle ground, if we think he is wrong, corrupting minds and ripping people off, we should simply let him get on with his fraudulent business. I would challenge Ring to either defend his claims like a man or sit back and let us critique them in peace.

     But what of his quake predictions and his assertion that 'I have never made predictions in hindsight'? When challenged to explain why he missed the recent destructive quakes in Peru, California and Chile, he argues that he had foreseen them. He spends four paragraphs explaining the astrology behind why they occurred, but fails to offer any supporting evidence or introduce any real science. He talks of a 'tweet warning of 20-22nd' and a clear warning he gave in his 'July free newsletter'. Unfortunately, but typically, Ring doesn't provide a link to his warning tweet, or even detail what it might have said. So it is left to others to go in search of Ring's claimed predictions. So first I looked at his tweets on his Twitter page. I found no 'tweet warning of 20-22nd'. The only recent tweets that mention earthquakes are the following three:

     Ken Ring @kenringweather · Aug 25
     Eleven above 5M quakes in past week including 7M in Peru, 6.1M California, and 6.6M Chile. NZ; 12 recorded shakes. Reason moon dec + apogee.

     Ken Ring @kenringweather · Aug 15
     Weather almanac for NZ for 2015 now available.. January wet. Cyclones in February. Earthquake activity up.

     Ken Ring @kenringweather · Jul 24
     Earthquake risk period 7-12 August Closest moon for 2014, plus Earth-Sun-Merc. Expect to affect central and SW of NZ.

     Note that the first mention that Ring makes of the quakes in Peru, California and Chile is a tweet on Aug 25, after they had already happened. He writes: 'Reason moon dec + apogee', the clear implication being that he had expected them to occur because of obvious conditions that he was well aware of. But the reality is that these quakes caught him completely unawares. Any fool can talk of an event after it's happened. Ring does warn of an earthquake risk in August (as he does for every month), but for the period 7-12 August, not the period 20-22 August as he now claims. He also wrote that the quake risk is due to 'Closest moon for 2014', that is, the perigee not the apogee, while the quakes actually happened near the apogee of which he makes no mention.

     I then checked his new claim that his 'July free newsletter suggested the 20-22 August as earthquake risk dates', Again I could find no reference whatsoever to 'the 20-22 August as earthquake risk dates'.

     Furthermore, as to the cause of the destructive August quakes in California and Peru (ignoring the one in Chile), Ring claims that he 'pointed the finger of blame at apogee'. He then goes into detail regarding only the one in California, 'On the 24th the apogee was at 6.10am UTC. At that time the moon was exactly on the opposite side of the earth to California , 12 hours away. The California shake was 4 hours later'. Apparently arguing that the cause of the quake was the Moon being 'exactly on the opposite side of the earth' at apogee and that the quake happened only four hours from apogee, he conveniently fails to explain why the quakes in Chile and Peru didn't also happen at this time. The quake in Chile happened nearly 12 hours before the Californian one, and the one in Peru 13 hours later. Ring only mentions the one in California because only it was close to apogee. And perhaps we should remind readers that an apogee happens every month, it's not one of those once in blue moon events. That an earthquake might fluke occurring near apogee (or perigee or somewhere in between) is of course quite likely. But yet again Ring makes no mention of the apogee in his newsletter, the first time he mentions it is in his tweet after the quakes had already occurred. In fact in his newsletter he warns people to be wary of the perigee, as he did in his tweet, the very opposite to the apogee. He writes:

     'Earthquake Risk Times
     Perigees (moon closest for month to earth)... closest in August for the year.
     Cautionary times may be when the moon gains speed
     5-16 August'

     So no mention of the apogee or the dates 20-22 August, instead Ring warns of the period 5-16 August, which strangely is again different to the 7-12 August period in his tweet. He also says the threat is due to the Moon gaining speed at the perigee. But when quakes embarrassingly and unexpectedly happen, not at the perigee but near the apogee instead, Ring changes his argument and now claims that planetary alignments and 'both apogee and new moon are an earthquake breeder', arguing that the 'relative absence due to apogee can allow pressure to build deep within the earth' and 'At apogee the moon has a smaller amount of Kinetic Energy'. But typical of Ring, he offers no evidence for any of this, just Jedi mind games and silly analogies about pup tents.

     So clearly Ring is indeed guilty, he is lying when he says 'I have never made predictions in hindsight'. There is no 'tweet warning of 20-22nd' as he now claims, no clear warning in his 'July free newsletter' as he now claims, and no evidence that he foresaw the apogee causing quakes even though he now claims that 'My tweets were from analysis of that'. The bogus new claims Ring has now made are all designed to convince everyone that he fully expected major quakes at the time and place they happened, and that evidence for this foreknowledge exists in his tweets and newsletters. All these claims are lies.

     I see also note that in desperation Ring falls back on his old favourite, claiming that he predicted the Christchurch earthquakes back in 2010/11. He did nothing of the sort. As he knows, we debunked his claims here. Ring has not predicted a single major earthquake. Ever. And even if he had apparently predicted the Christchurch quakes, why has he not managed to predict a single quake since then, for anywhere in the world? We've certainly had some big ones, all of which he has missed. He's like a moron who flukes winning Lotto once and who then claims that he can tell others, for a fee, how to pick the winning numbers for the next draw. He can't explain why he has never won another draw, and no one seems to notice that he hasn't won again.

     I also notice that the 'Disclaimer' at the end of Ring's newsletter and other articles are getting more desperate, defensive and sillier if that's possible. For example he starts by saying that 'Weather is an inexact science like medicine or geology'. Weather is not a science Ken, inexact or otherwise. That's as stupid as saying 'Cheesecake is an inexact science'. He laments that 'an astrologer runs the risk of being called a scaremonger. This all needs to change'. Well it's not going to change Ken if you refuse to prove that astrologers have some good evidence behind the warning, 'Earthquakes are a comin', run for the hills'. Ring finishes by noting that he's not writing for 'for critics and mudslingers. There are plenty of sceptical websites one can visit if one wants to read that nothing extraterrestrial could be influential to Earth. All are entitled to their opinion, as are we'. I guess one of the websites he's referring to is this one, but even in that statement he struggles with the truth. It's absolute bullshit that we criticise Ring's method because we argue 'that nothing extraterrestrial could be influential to Earth'. The Sun is extraterrestrial and without its utterly crucial influence life on Earth wouldn't exist. The Moon is extraterrestrial and it's influence on Earth is also crucial, the tides for example, and not to ignore a luminous Moon for skinny dipping. Comets are extraterrestrial and they could well have brought water to the planet and maybe even the precursors of life itself. Asteroids are extraterrestrial and the dinosaurs would argue, if they could, that one had a huge influence on their future prospects. The solar wind, gamma rays, cosmic rays and other extraterrestrial radiation influence the Earth, and if extraterrestrial aliens ever visit us they would have a huge influence. I don't know whether it's mere ignorance that prompts Ring to make such statements or a devious attempt to portray his critics as close-minded. And I can't help but highlight another example of Ring's ignorance regarding science and modern knowledge. In his latest newsletter he explains that his method is 'based on the orbits of sun, moon and planets'. Newsflash Ken, the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around. What flawed body of knowledge might think that the Sun has an orbit that can be studied? Oh that's right, ancient astrology, and Ring has told us that 'I admit I use the ancient astrology that was the forerunner of astronomy'.

     Ring began his email with, 'Well it's the old story of finding what you seek'. The thing I was seeking was the truth of the matter, and the old story that I found was that Ring struggles greatly in telling the truth.

559. Comment by Jamie, 07 Sep, 2014

     Hi John, on August 28th, Ken tweets:

     "Our last warnings justified, with 3x above-6 shakes Pacific latitides, + shakes in NZ and volc activity.
     Next seismic risk times 1-3 Sept.."

     Then, on August 29th, this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUREX8aFbMs

     'Volcano Eruption in Papua New Guinea
     The eruption of Mount Tavurvur volcano on August 29th, 2014. Captured by Phil McNamara.'

     Holy Smoking Toledos! That ol' moon must be harder to pick than a broken nose!
560. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Sep, 2014

     Hi Jamie. He's pathetic isn't he? Totally and utterly incompetent! Apparently monitoring 'Pacific latitides (sic)', he confidently assures everyone on the 28th that they can rest easy for a few days since he 'knows' when the next panic window is — 'Next seismic risk times 1-3 Sept' — and then the very next day a volcano erupts. Oh how embarrassing for him.

     Ring must so wish there was a way he could hide his failed predictions — sorry, opinions — from the world, and there is actually an easy way he could do this. Since all his opinions are wrong, all he needs do to stop making a fool of himself is to shut up, keeping his opinions hidden from the public and so removing them as a source of ridicule and mirth.

     Unfortunately for Ring, since he's in the business of selling his opinions, laughably flawed as they are, he can't keep them to himself and thus he will continually make a fool of himself. Of course he'll try to limit how many people see through his nonsense by deliberately targeting those whose cognitive ability matches his. That's why he continually pleads with people of average intelligence and above: 'You do not have to read my work'.

561. Comment by Graham, 08 Nov, 2014

     Hi John. I noticed Ken has been very quiet for a while and as we're approaching peak almanac peddling season I was wondering what he was up to. Maybe he watched Life of Brian and thought if he kept his mouth shut, people would think he was the messiah.

     But no, he's still at it. His latest yahoo entry 'Monsoon and cyclones', up until the astrobabble at the end at least, is surprisingly largely correct. Of course this made me immediately suspicious and googling a few sentences, it's clearly been plagiarised from here 'What is a monsoon?', an ABC documentary called "Eye of the Storm". Yahoo may have very low standards when it comes to who they have write for them, but you'd think at least they'd be worried about publishing unacknowledged, the work of others. There's some good anti-plagiarism software out there, so it's not like it's difficult to check.

     I also stumbled across this: 'How Your Cat Chose You' by Ken Ring [Paperback, Published: September 23, 2014]. At least he's playing to his strengths here, evidence based science was never his forte. Making up stories about cats is more his thing... and probably his own work.

562. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Nov, 2014

     Hi Graham. You're right, Ken has been keeping a low profile of late, but as they say, good things never last. In the past I've found that your suspicions are warranted, whenever Ring's written comments appear erudite and in agreement with modern knowledge, then the odds are that he has shamelessly stolen them word for word from another source. As you discovered, the bulk of his monsoon explanation was plagiarised from the ABC article. I did a quick calculation and found that around 43% of Ring's article that he is passing off as his original work is stolen. We have already exposed Ring's blatant willingness to steal the work of others several times, and he promised it would stop, but clearly he is back in the plagiarism game. Is it because he's simply dishonest, or too lazy, or does he lack the intellect to produce original text? I suspect it's a combination of all three. Ring is also quite cunning in that when stealing scientific explanations, he edits out comments that disagree with his astrological nonsense. In Ring's article, essentially the first half is correct, and stolen, and he then signals his descent into, as you say Graham, 'astrobabble' , with the sentence that begins: 'According to aboriginal custom...'

     It astounds me that people with 21st century computers, tablets and smartphones use these devices simply to learn what the Australian aborigines have discovered about the weather over the last few thousand years. It's like going to the doctor simply to ask him if he can recommend a good faith healer. Ring and his followers infuse their lives with modern science and technology and yet at the same time argue that ancient, primitive societies had knowledge that was far superior to ours. They are credulous, superstitious nutters, desperate to keep their smartphone but ignorantly happy to criticise the science that created it.

     Thanks for the info on his newly published book 'How Your Cat Chose You'. I'm amazed that Ring has put out a sequel to his other piece of feline nonsense: 'Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws'. Ring hates it when people mention his 'Pawmistry' book. In anything but astrological circles he is clearly embarrassed by it and quickly dismisses it as a joke that no one got and changes the subject. There is no mention of it on his website, he's like a Miss World entrant trying to keep those embarrassing nude photos under wrap.

     So, apparently well aware that his 'Pawmistry' book makes him look like a fool when discussing science and weather prediction, what does Ring do, he writes another piece of New Age nonsense to add to the first. Whereas 'Pawmistry' was based on 'numerology, astrology, handwriting analysis (scatchings) and love-bumps on the head', we're told that 'How Your Cat Chose You' is 'Based on NLP studies and sound psychology'. Like all pseudoscience it sounds scientific to those that know nothing about science. The fact is that NLP has as much scientific support as does the Flat Earth Society. That is, none at all. NLP or Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a silly attempt to change people's behaviour by teaching them to program their brains. NLP therapists claim to 'speak directly to the unconscious mind'. Obviously this silly belief is right up Ring's alley and complements his belief in astrology. All evidence indicates that NLP proponents are deluded.

     The rear of Ring's new book mentions 'Pawmistry' and notes that it was 'the runaway best-seller that allowed the cat-owner for the first time to learn about their cats' inner character by examining its paws'. I would debate that it was a 'runaway best-seller', since most people have never heard of it and even Ring won't publicise it. On his Yahoo article he mentions that he's the author of the 'Weather Almanac', but no plug for his cat books. Revealingly however, on the book jacket for 'How Your Cat Chose You', Ring advertises his website 'www.predictweather.co.nz'. Clearly he is happy to let New Age believers know he also predicts the weather, but not the other way around. He wants to hide his sideline expertise in reading the minds of cats from his almanac clients. The jacket's talk of 'NLP studies and sound psychology', plus its mention of 'Pawmistry', all sounds quite serious rather than a joke, but I notice on the Amazon site that the final sentence of its blurb reads: '(Note: How Your Cat Chose You is intended as a light-hearted bit of fun, and shouldn't be taken too seriously — but you still might learn something in the process!)' This sounds like something that Ring added as an afterthought to limit the type of ridicule that 'Pawmistry' attracted. However the book's jacket does not have this disclaimer, it is promoted as non-fiction, not a spoof. Anyone picking up this book in a shop is not told that it should be in the fantasy section. Just as no believers in astrology or New Age nonsense accepted that 'Pawmistry' wasn't serious, I suspect that believers in NLP and cat psychology will once again argue that Ring is supporting them, not making fun of them. Both of Ring's feline books are targeted to believers in nonsense, no one else would be stupid enough to buy them, just as people who don't believe in astrology don't buy horoscopes books. With his latest book either Ring is serious and believes in NLP or he knows he can make easy money from fools. Either way he's not someone I can respect.

     My view is that anyone that wants to be taken seriously in matters of real science should not be writing a series of books that promote pseudoscience. But as you say Graham, 'evidence based science was never his forte', so perhaps Ring has finally had an epiphany and is just returning to what he knows, writing nonsense for gullible fools.

563. Comment by Rob, 10 Nov, 2014

     Its sad to see Ken Ring copying sentences verbatim again.
     It's been a couple of years since I caught him posting an article to Yahoo on plastic bags, without crediting the original article written and published at Waikato. At that time he made up some excuse that he couldn't add an extra credit to his article and that the blog was locked down.
     I would love to see his excuse for this latest steal from the ABC website.
     What amazes me, is even though he copies articles without crediting the source, he then adds his own blurbs and makes then near non readable for anyone with English as a first or second language.
     And as for his cat book, well, amazon lets you read random pages, and its just gibberish.
     But on another matter, I actually like parts of NLP. While I am not a practioner, I have read pieces that lend me to believe that elements definitely work, such as advertising etc. Do you have anything on the anti NLP view? I ask not to be conflicting, but am curious.

564. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Nov, 2014

     Hi Rob. As they say, a leopard can't change its spots, and apparently it's in Ring's nature to steal the work of others and not feel guilty about it. But of course he then makes things worse by editing the stolen text and adding his own blurb to produce a view that the original author never intended.

     As for NLP, you say that 'I have read pieces that lend me to believe that elements definitely work'. Unfortunately, no matter what topic one reads up on, be it NLP, homeopathy or prayer, one will always find numerous claims that whatever they're pushing actually works. To sell their scam they must speak positively, and of course every scam will likely have some positive element. For example, homeopathic remedies are just plain water so they have no harmful side effects, and praying for someone's health, while it won't work, it probably makes you a more compassionate person.

     The following are some quotes from online articles on NLP that you might like to read:

     Wikipedia — Neuro-linguistic programming
     'The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents.'

     Neurolinguistic Programming and other Nonsense
     'The last thirty years of research have simply shown that NLP is bunk.'

     The Woo of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
     'NLP bastardizes scientific principles and terms to mean other than how they are defined or are misapplied.'

     NLP: Neuro-linguistic Programming
     'In 2005, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published the results of a comprehensive study of all the publications regarding NLP and similar modalities, which it grouped together under the term "power therapies". The article states:
     ...'The Power Therapies'... have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.'

565. Comment by Wayne, 03 Dec, 2014

     Hi sillybeliefs, your views are very typical of the science fraternity, if you don't know it now one else can. In fact Ken Rings long term predications are better the the Met Office.

     I suppose you also think that global warm is for real to, Yea Right!

566. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Dec, 2014

     Hi Wayne, thanks for recognising that we are indeed supporters of scientific thinking and have no time for astrologers like Ken Ring who eschew reason and evidence and instead embrace primitive nonsense dressed up in pseudoscientific garb.

     Your accusation that 'if [science] don't know it now one else can' is baseless and childish, it's a claim that science never makes. Scientists have looked at the claims made by astrologers and haven't said that these folk can't make discoveries, only that to date their claim that the distant planets and stars affect our future has no evidence whatsoever to support it. And Ken Ring pointedly refuses to produce that evidence and change their minds, obsessed as he is with promoting his scam to a gullible public.

     Your argument, without supporting evidence, that 'In fact Ken Rings long term predications are better the the Met Office' (besides being demonstrably false), is as silly and as empty a claim as those that argue that witchdoctors and priests are better at healing than real doctors and surgeons. Ring predicting that it MIGHT be cold somewhere in NZ sometime within a two week window next winter is a prediction that even an intellectually challenged gerbil would be embarrassed to make.

     You seem to be of the view that we should take more notice of astrologers than scientists. Yeah right. That will bring about a lot of progress. This desire to blindly embrace primitive and ignorant beliefs from our past reminds me that Ebola is killing thousands in Africa right now because many people there still follow superstitious beliefs and hack those that talk science to death. With ready access to education and knowledge, it's embarrassing that even in NZ many still opt for pseudoscience over science and happily pay an astrologer for advice.

567. Comment by Mikaere, 05 Dec, 2014

     Hi John. Such postings in support of Ring's predictions do him more harm than good.

     Leaving aside the poor grammar and malapropisms, which don't inspire confidence in the message, the statement is basically an attack on people who espouse science, rather than providing evidence in support of Ring.

     What would be really wonderful to see would be some data to back up the statement — "In fact Ken Rings long term predications are better the the Met Office." [sic] Surely that isn't too much to ask? Supposedly there are data available? All that is needed is a link to a comparative study and if it is valid and reliable, there can be no more debate. Or was the statement just drawn out of thick air?

     Perhaps we should insist that any evidence should arise from scientific methodology — anecdotes are not acceptable. Predicting fine weather for Shaylene's wedding on Valentine's Day, or writing that Gore will have some snow in August, won't be adequate. Or would that be an unreasonable demand? Perhaps only the science 'fraternity' should be concerned with robust evidence?

568. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Dec, 2014

     Expecting robust evidence is hardly an unreasonable demand Mikaere, but it is a demand that Ring and his supporters fail to accept or even grasp.

569. Comment by David, 06 Dec, 2014

     The Auckland Council is planning to plant its trees based on the Maori calendar.

     The Society of Maori Astronomy Research and Traditions is collating data and evidence to create accurate maramataka, or calendars, for different areas.

     A researcher and adviser to the council, Rereata Makiha, said the aim is to help whanau, hapu and iwi and councils choose the right days to plant, go fishing and hold hui...

     I am sure AC are paying the society for its work. They could save money by buying Ken Ring's book.

570. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Dec, 2014

     Quite right David, they could save money by buying Ken Ring's book, or they could reject both and drag themselves kicking and screaming into the 21st century, with the realisation that neither Maori traditions nor astrology can make accurate, precise predictions. It's just deplorable what some councils waste ratepayer money on. Some councillors clearly wouldn't feel out of place if transported back in time to serve on a medieval town council. This is not to say that some ancient cultural traditions don't sometimes contain a germ of real knowledge, but there is a huge difference between knowing what season it rains most and predicting what day it's safe to hold a hui outside on the lawn.

571. Comment by Ron, 05 Jan, 2015

     Howdy John. I have noted for some time that Ken Ring has a section in his almanac relating to gardening by the moon. He also mentions such in all his newsletters. Can I safely conclude then that this is yet another category of bunk he really believes in. Even though it has been practiced for thousands of yrs it has never been proved. So many tests show no difference between planting on "good" days or "bad" days. The few studies done have been inconclusive, limited time frames and conflicting results. We are told such claptrap as below ground crops like carrots need to be sown when the moon is passing through Capricorn, Taurus or Virgo.

     Plus the full moon and all its light speeds up germination and the gravitational pull causes moisture to rise in the earth therefore seeds will absorb more water at this time. Funny, I've always relied on either hosing or rain. I think this is all just folklore and superstition. At least it is all harmless, however my feelings on this topic is that anyone who truly believes this demonstrate a possible brain softening. I am very much a vegetable gardener over the last 30 plus yrs. I boast that my garden is a sea of vigorous growth and size. We give lots away and they are sought after for their flavour and appearance. I learnt from my Dad as a kid and followed his methods. He used to grow the largest carrots I've ever seen. Neither of us ever thought about the moon. The secret? Horse manure. As my father always referred to it; well rotted stable manure and some river sand for the carrots. Not the moon nor the constellations. That's my earthy little comment for the day.

572. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Jan, 2015

     Hi Ron. Like you I see no evidence for the silly claims that Ring makes relating to gardening by the moon. It's merely Ring extending astrology to cover every aspect of our lives and thus gain more deluded customers. Remember that in the past he has also written that 'when it comes to deep skin cleansing, the best time to do this was said to be when the moon is on the wane... You are supposed to care for the hair when the moon is in Leo... On a simpler basis, sell a house before a full moon...' Like you I have managed to grow a good garden with no thought of what constellation the moon was in. You put manure on your garden, Ring feeds it to his gullible clients.

573. Comment by Ron, 06 Jan, 2015

     Hello again John. Have you been aware or followed the blogspot going in Ireland that, like your site, vilifies Ken Ring? The blogger does not have a super site like yourself but attracts many comments as many are coming to realise Ken and his almanacs are a scam. Like on your site in the past Ken is kept busy replying to comments with the last only 5 days ago. Seems what really triggered it all was the year 2012. In reference the blogger writes "if he could get anything wrong in 2012, he did, and his "science" is, frankly, bullshit".

     He also says "All he is doing is drumming up traffic for his website and his real business of selling almanacs. Our radio and other media outlets never seem to challenge him on his claims or past predictions so he gets away with it". They set up a "Ken Ring watch" for 2014 where results of all his predictions will be analysed with percentages. Results not out yet but earlier checks revealed, like here, a success rate of around 26%. Had to laugh as the blog started 2014 with the statement "Ken bloody Ring reappeared on our airwaves peddling his almanacs". It's all most entertaining with views and comments similar in many instances to your SB site John. Ken, of course, replies as per his usual attack mode and trite comments. He seems to think those Irish are naïve but a kiwi commented there and quoted some sites including Silly Beliefs and I get the feeling the blogger and others have been doing quite a bit of reading over cyberspace. When Ken saw the reference he replied "Silly Beliefs, ha ha, they are misogynists and white supremacists". What a silly paranoid plonker. Where does he get this idea you or your team are woman haters? What the hell has it got to do with the debate anyway? The Irish notice Ken can change his statements to give different meanings. He tells them "potential is all I'm ever predicting". That caused some derision. He told them Sir Isaac Newton was an astrologer. That was quickly challenged and refuted. He was put on the spot re. his cat paw reading. He retorted by saying it was all a joke by Penguin books 16 yrs ago and "didn't they get it"? He accuses them of being on the warpath and trying to put him out of business. But he puts a big emphasis on farmers only as though they are his only clients. That he sells approx 1000 almanacs to Irish farmers annually. Ken was challenged to offer some proof of this as the blogger would like to meet/contact some of these farmers but silence from Ring, of course. Ken says now he only listens to the farmers who support him year after year. Hmmm. Funny that. He only listens to those who help him to become wealthy? What do these clients talk to him about. How his predictions are spot on? I could not believe or accept that!!! Ken, on his high horse slammed the blogger with "I do have a problem when someone sets up a website to slander me by inferring I am taking money in a fraudulent manner". He then proceeds to put it squarely on the moronic purchasers of his almanacs by saying they are doing so by choice and if anything are only "defrauding" themselves. And so it goes on. After all that I then see a book reviewer blog reviewing the 2015 almanac. In it were quotes from Aust. and NZ happy clients, no unhappy ones. Briefly some went like this; "Thanks for excellent, professional service over last 4 yrs. KR seems to be having his fair share of success. Keep up the good work, a great help in planning our aviation activities. KR's methods attract widespread media and public interest, his high hit rate for reliability attracts a wide following and endorsements. This makes me want to throw up. I mean honestly what bloody planet do these people live on?

574. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Jan, 2015

     Hi Ron. No, I hadn't seen that blog in Ireland, but really, there should be critical blogs in every country Ken Ring pushes his scam in, since Irish jokes aside, of course the Irish are as intelligent as anyone, and it should be obvious to many that Ring is just a silly astrologer born a millennium too late. But like us in NZ they will also have more than their fair share of gullible morons that will be fooled by Ring's primitive nonsense and a media that is more focused on profit than exposing scams, especially if the scammer helps boost their ratings.

     As for the claim that Ring makes: 'Silly Beliefs, ha ha, they are misogynists and white supremacists', it is totally untrue, and Ring knows this, thus it is very offensive. What have we written that makes the loathsome fool think that we hate women, even those of us that are women, and that we are racists? We have challenged Ring on these and other disgusting insults in the past and typically he has refused to explain why he has reached these opinions of us. He simply hides for a time then repeats the same lies to others or even back to us. When backed into a corner, it is simply Ring's childish manner of defence to invent and issue disgusting slurs and insults just as a caged chimp throws his own faeces at spectators. And as you say Ron, even if these lies were actually true, they would have no relevance to the debate. There is no reason in the world that even most misogynist white supremacists wouldn't still see that astrology was primitive nonsense. Ring has fallen for the logical fallacy of picking on the person rather than the person's argument. But again, since Ring has no rational response to offer, no data or evidence to exhibit in his defence, he is forced into either throwing a tantrum or conceding that his business is based on a tissue of lies. And obviously he goes with the tantrum.

     I had to giggle when I read that Ring, no doubt crying over his keyboard, writes that 'I do have a problem when someone sets up a website to slander me by inferring I am taking money in a fraudulent manner'. He continued by saying that 'This is a free society. But your attack is one-sided. Yes I have my own website - but I have never attacked you or your vocation on it, and never would'. Of course he has said the exact same thing to us. And just to be picky, as has been pointed out to Ring several times, it would be libel not slander, and also the website is not inferring that Ring is a fraud, it is, if anything, implying. Clearly Ring's idea of a free society and thus free speech is one where he can promulgate his views and criticise whomever he pleases but no one is free to express views contrary to his or, woe betide, actually criticise him directly. Ring argues that it is wrong to slander people, always failing to grasp that it's not libel or slander if the accusations are true, and yet he repeatedly makes false statements about us, eg 'they are misogynists and white supremacists'. How can he honestly say he would never attack others when he does it on a regular basis? His hypocrisy astounds me.

     Every sensible challenge and accusation aimed at Ring and every silly reply and counter-accusation by Ring on the Irish blog that you mention has already been played out numerous times on other sites, including 'Silly Beliefs'. Ring trolls the Internet day and night looking for comments about his work, praising those that believe and attacking those that are doubtful or downright skeptical. On attack he uses the same silly arguments and vile insults because like our aforementioned chimp, those are all he has at hand. Like all scammers, Ring will know that most people will immediately see through his scam but that he only needs a handful of idiots to be sucked in and to buy his worthless products for his business to make money. It is, unfortunately, a tried and true business plan that works, even if the item being sold doesn't.

575. Comment by Ron, 09 Jan, 2015

     Hi John, very well said as always. Ken has insinuated he has not read this site for yonks but I wonder. How sweet it was to have that farmer write in on the Irish blog and express how unhappy he was re. his bloody almanac and suggested he hang up his boots and retire based on it's contents. Poor Ken, floored, could only ask what part of Ireland he lives in. Loved it.

Return to Article

Add a Comment