Comments:
-
Comment by Anonymous-17, 09 Jan, 2015
Another full moon, another earthquake, west coast of NZ.
And no one predicted it, but you can observe a correlation.
The moon tilts the earth allowing for our temperate seasons, and therefore life which is weather dependent obviously.
Weather it seems can be an observable pattern. Ken Rings observations have been of use to farmers who try to read the weather and actually use predictions to essentially make gambles on what to do. its the nature of the business
Predictions are just that. They're not claiming to be science, which is observable fact repeated over time to give strength to the hypothesis. The weather might be slightly off but if its in a ball park, Businesses that are weather dependent can do with something better that a 5 day fore cast and this is what ol Keny Ring has provided for people in these industries, namely farming etc
People pay financial advisors and they are often useless or in fact criminal, and do no proper analyses that would stand up to scrutiny.
How about you focus some of your boundless energy on these modern day charlatans.
As far a I can see, Ken Ring is using thouands of years of human knowledge on the subject of weather to aid some people in their decision making.
In your report, I found it insulting to see the use of reasoning that went it has been said to be a pseudo science, so therefore it is pretending to be science. That's idiotic, it's not saying its a science, it's predictions. Get you parameters straight.
Science is the same result exactly, and weather is just never going to be that observable, so chill out my man.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Jan, 2015
Unfortunately, and probably not surprisingly, I see several flaws in the reasoning that you use to support your love affair with 'ol Keny Ring', and I predict that this relationship is set for failure, based as it is on lies on his part and gross misunderstanding on yours.
To start with, you wrote: 'Another full moon, another earthquake, west coast of NZ. And no one predicted it, but you can observe a correlation'. No you can't! What correlation is there, meaning a relationship between cause and effect, that is, that apparently full moons cause major earthquakes? You could have said, 'Another sunrise, another day', and have correctly claimed a correlation, because a sunrise does indeed cause a new day. But there is no evidence whatsoever that a full moon causes earthquakes, no evidence that there is a correlation or connection. I've experienced roughly 12 full moons in the last year, and not a single major earthquake, no doubt you can say the same. The west coast of NZ also experienced the same 12 full moons and yet only got one earthquake, why were the other 11 fizzers? Even the full moon that you suggest caused the west coast quake was at the same time above me, not to mention Christchurch, Wellington, Auckland and, well... the rest of NZ. Why didn't its destructive astrological forces reach out and cause quakes nation wide? And let's remember that Ring also claims that not just full moons, but also new moons, high tide, mid-tide, low tide, apogee, perigee, and probably even too short a skirt length on women, all cause earthquakes. If this were truly the case then earthquakes should be happening the world over, pretty much continuously, but certainly at every full moon. But they don't. (For more on this, see our blog post — Ken Ring and earthquake clusters — where we expose Ring's full moon-earthquake nonsense.) And speaking of the west coast earthquake, you said that 'no one predicted it'. That's right, so you should, considering who you are defending, have highlighted the fact that Ken Ring also failed to predict it.
Leaving earthquakes you move to the weather, claiming that 'The moon tilts the earth allowing for our temperate seasons, and therefore life which is weather dependent obviously'. umm... no, the moon does not cause the tilt of the earth, although the tilt of the earth does cause the seasons. The earth would still be tilted even if the moon disappeared. Also much of life on earth is not weather dependent, and carries on regardless, but even for life that does require a specific climate, there is no good evidence that the moon's position among the constellations has any bearing on the weather.
You then make the revolutionary claim that 'Weather it seems can be an observable pattern'. Well this has been known for like... ever. Dark clouds and a drop in temperature suggests rain, clear skies and bright sun suggests a hot day, an approaching lightning storm suggests that it's time to leave the golf course. These observable patterns are why we have short term weather forecasts, but the observable patterns do not work out long term. The only long term patterns involve climate and the seasons, not the weather.
You say that farmers use Ring's long term predictions 'to essentially make gambles on what to do'. The fact is that most farmers do not use Ring's predictions at all. I agree that a few do, but the fact that they buy Ring's almanac means nothing. I could say that in the deep past farmers consulted witches, soothsayers and dead ancestors for advice 'to essentially make gambles on what to do'. The question is not whether farmers sought questionable advice, but whether this advice actually worked. Unfortunately for Ring there is plenty of evidence that his weather predictions are no better than an educated guess, and often far worse. There is not one well documented case of Ring correctly and clearly predicting a severe weather event (or earthquake or volcanic eruption), while there is untold evidence of Ring failing to predict severe weather events that did occur, and untold evidence of Ring making clear predictions that failed. Ring has never had a qualified, independent analysis of his prediction success rate carried out, and refuses to release his data to allow others to check his claims. He regularly makes claims of a success rate of 85-91% accuracy, but this is utterly bogus, a number that he has simply plucked out of the air.
You then argue that 'Predictions are just that. They're not claiming to be science'. In fact predictions are very important in science, if a theory doesn't make verifiable predictions then it's not a scientific theory. Without accurate and reliable predictions science would be worthless, we wouldn't have antibiotics or aircraft and we would still be believing that capricious, interfering gods determine our fate, or perhaps it's the position of the planets amongst the stars. But this talk of Ring making mere predictions is where you are also at cross purposes with what Ring states. Ring is on record stating ad nauseam that he never makes predictions, for example:
'I don't claim to predict the weather. No one can... what I say is opinion.'
'Look, let me spell this out more simply... I am selling opinions... The disclaimer always spells it out — opinions.'
'My business is only a bunch of opinions as I have wearily repeated. There is no claim on accuracy, proof or anything other than that I have opinions.'
So you seem to misunderstand what it is that Ring claims to be able to do. I agree with you that Ring is indeed making predictions and forecasts regarding the weather, but he disagrees with us both, since Ring has come to realise that the public rightly expects something called a 'prediction' or 'forecast' to be far more accurate than his turn out to be, so he now insists that he only offers 'opinions'. Now cunningly relabelled the public shouldn't have the same expectations of accuracy, recalling that Ring clearly states that 'There is no claim on accuracy' connected to his opinions. Would you buy a set of scales if an attached label said that 'There is no claim on accuracy connected to this device'? I certainly hope not! And yet foolish people still clamour to purchase his opinions even with this honest disclaimer.
Regarding Ring's weather predictions or opinions, you say 'The weather might be slightly off but if its in a ball park', the implication being that his predictions are still useful for planning weather dependent events. But the reality is that Ring demands a '3-4 day window' and says that 'sometimes a predicted event can be up to a week late'. He also insists that his forecast range covers a '50-80mile radius geographically'. So not only is Ring's weather opinion not expected to be in the ball park, it's not even in the same city! It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that some farmer or a bride on her wedding day that was promised a sunny day would still be happy with Ring even if it rained as long as it was sunny 80 miles away or a week later! And again, Ring refuses to supply any real evidence that his predictions are ever in the 'ball park', beyond worthless comments from faceless clients telling him to keep up the good work. These are what are know in the scam world as testimonials and are only used and relied on when no real evidence or trial data is available to prove that your product actually works. Of course Ring does have real data on the accuracy of his predictions, but he won't release it, so one can only assume it shows his product doesn't actually work, thus he is forced to fall back on a hastily scribbled note of thanks from a farmer that was written a decade ago.
You then shift your focus to financial advisors, arguing that 'they are often useless or in fact criminal, and do no proper analyses that would stand up to scrutiny'. You almost appear to be arguing that if these clearly fraudulent scammers can operate legally, then Ring should be allowed to as well. If I must expose anyone, you say, 'How about you focus some of your boundless energy on these modern day charlatans'. In other words, we should leave your favourite charlatan alone! Tell you what, you show me the financial advisor that uses astrology as Ring does (or gets financial advice from dead people or from channelling aliens etc) and we will expose them as being as bogus as Ken Ring.
Next you say that 'As far a I can see, Ken Ring is using thouands of years of human knowledge on the subject of weather...' Sorry, but you confuse knowledge with ignorance. Astrology is nonsense, and it is most definitely astrology that Ring uses to make his predictions. He is on record saying, 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations', and trying to convince us that 'It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to'. Certainly astrology is still used 'to aid some people in their decision making', many consult their horoscopes and Ring's almanac daily, and others insist that they talk to dead people or with some religious leader to aid their decision making. But just because some foolish people still seek advice from people immersed in ancient superstitious nonsense, what you call 'human knowledge', it's no reason for the rest of us to take them seriously. We'd still be fearing black cats and burning heretics at the stake if the world still believed in most of the 'knowledge' gained in the last few thousand years.
You then went on to criticise us for calling what Ring does a pseudoscience, that is, nonsense pretending to be science. We do indeed accuse Ring of arguing that his method is soundly based in science, when it clearly isn't. You argue that 'That's idiotic, it's not saying its a science, it's predictions. Get you parameters straight'. Once again it appears that you don't know your hero as well as you think. Ring has argued that, 'I try to deal in science... I am scientific in my methods... why label what I do as unscientific?... I am running a sincere business... I'm doing it as a scientist, using scientific tools...' Of course once again I agree with you that it is idiotic to suggest that what Ring is saying is scientific, but again he disagrees with us both, since Ring insists (when it suits him) that what he does is science. So it is you that needs to get your facts straight. Of course I should add that you might hit back with quotes from Ring where he insists his method his NOT scientific. To help you out I'll provide some quotes from Ring: 'I don't think weather is about science... Weather is not a science... Weather doesn't fulfill any scientific criterion... what I am doing is pre-science... My work... is not intended for the scientific community'. No doubt you're now a little confused, realising that these comments from Ring contradict the ones he made above. That's another reason why we make the accusation of pseudoscience, Ring makes numerous claims, some of which must clearly be lies, whatever it takes to make people believe him.
Strangely you finish off by stating that 'weather is just never going to be that observable, so chill out my man'. Since weather is always observable, just look out the window, by 'observable' I'm assuming you actually mean 'predictable', and specifically predictable long term. But if that's what you mean then that's our argument too, that long term weather prediction, while not impossible, is not realistic. But then if you feel this way how can you support Ring in his claims that he can do just that, predict the weather, accurately, 200 years in advance if need be? (And yes, he mentioned 200 years, I didn't just make it up.) And these long term predictions will be so accurate that Ring expects people to pay good money for them!
Based on your final comment I suspect that you wouldn't pay Ring for one of his long term predictions, and based on your clear misunderstanding of what Ring has claimed, I wonder if your support of Ken Ring has been all that well thought through?
We feel that people shouldn't be lied to and when genuinely curious about something, such as Do gods exist? Will a homeopathic potion cure Ebola? Can mediums talk to my dead boyfriend? and of course, Can Ken Ring use astrology to predict the weather? they deserve honest answers, even if that answer is 'I don't know'. Like Ken Ring, we too have opinions that we offer to the public, although our opinions are free and based on reason, evidence and debate, and to his great annoyance we will continue to support free speech, civil behaviour, rationality and will expose silly beliefs wherever we find them, his included. As long as Ring spouts nonsense and refuses to subject his method to scientific testing we will continue to challenge his claims, and his hurling of vile insults at us only strengthens our resolve, since I am not, as Ring claims, a 'misogynist... white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi... that hates Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews', and on and on he goes. He's definitely off my Xmas card list now.
-
Comment by Anonymous-18, 10 Jan, 2015
Hmmmm. Could it be that Anonymous-17 is actually Ken Ring? The comment certainly reads like Ring-speak with the usual "Moon tilts the Earth" pseudo-science.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Jan, 2015
You're right, it does sound like something Ken would say, but I suspect it's just someone else with the same level of education as Ken, ie medieval. Far too many people get their science and history 'facts' from movies, Doctor Who episodes and their Facebook 'friends' these days, and I think we underestimate just how many false ideas circulate in the minds of many apparently educated folk. In an age when many people still believe in souls and angels on clouds, we shouldn't be surprised that a depressing number have no idea about science and find silly claims put forward by the likes of Ken Ring quite plausible.
-
Comment by Mikaere, 10 Jan, 2015
Hi John, I'm afraid your correspondent on Ken Ring lost me after '...you can observe the correlation.' Your rebuttal was spot-on.
People who don't understand statistics are not aware of the need to follow rigorous procedures to establish causality — a key feature being the need to eliminate extraneous variables. Observing a phenomenon and attributing a causal relationship with another phenomenon, without thinking it through, is pure superstition. I wonder which way the wind was blowing on the day of the earthquake. Perhaps it rained in Otira, or a fantail flew into the public toilets in Greymouth... don't forget that Comet Lovejoy was 'overhead'.
Plate tectonics is so boring. Nobody can see what's happening so far underground. The moon is an obvious culprit, visible and regular — easy for ancient astrologers to convince people. Occasional 'hits' are powerful reinforcers.
Superstitious behaviour and beliefs abound. Generally they are harmless. Often people genuinely believe in what they're promulgating.
Silly beliefs become dangerous beliefs when they are used to manipulate people to rely on useless cures, or perform antisocial or barbaric acts. Of course, they can be used cynically for personal gain as well.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Jan, 2015
Hi Mikaere, I agree with your comments. I might add that it is my worry that even those silly beliefs that are viewed as generally harmless can still go on to inform people's views on more important topics, perhaps without them even realising it. For example, how do religious folk that truly believe in Satan affect a jury decision on a trial where a murder accused claims that Satan made him do it? Would religious fundamentalists that believe the end of the world is nigh do anything to stop a terrorist from launching a nuclear strike? Would a politician who believed in homeopathy because he had used it at home go on to suggest that we use it to combat the Ebola threat? Might a person who believed that mediums could talk to the dead end up spending thousands of dollars on psychic consultations? For all those that believe the Moon landing was a hoax, won't they resist any public spending on space travel, and thus inhibit our progress? Might talk of ending up in Hell with eternal torture lead to extreme stress and genuine fear when eventually one gets old and approaches death? And of course none of these examples are merely academic, they have all happened in the real world.
Even those that believe in Ring's astrological nonsense, are they merely just wasting their money? With this primitive worldview how can it not affect how they vote for example, and thus potentially screw up our country by voting for some party that sides with Ring's predictions? Might not some city's economy suffer if a large number of it's citizens believe his earthquake warnings and flee to rural parts?
I think if people hold silly beliefs, even ones generally viewed as harmless, it still shows that their critical thinking skills are not what they should be in at least one area, and when they have clearly failed once, the potential exists that they might fail again in something far more important. Rather than let them suffer their delusion because it is deemed 'harmless', I think the admirable thing to do is to politely steer them towards the truth of the matter. They discover a new fact about the world and hopefully improve their ability to evaluate new information. I know it's what I would want if I laboured under some silly belief.
-
Comment by Graham, 22 Jan, 2015
Hi John. Thought you might like to hear what someone from Ken's main support base has to say about him. Farmer Andy Thompson on the Farming Show:
http://www.farmingshow.com/on-demand/audio/andy-thompson-west-coast-cow-cocky-211/
I'm going to go out on a limb here, I'm pretty sure this guy can read and write.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Jan, 2015
Hi Graham, for some unknown reason, perhaps known only to farmers, I can see that page but can't listen to that item (or any of their audio in fact). But based on a listener's text comment, I take it that farmer Andy Thompson was questioning Ken Ring's denial of climate change. This listener, who correctly thought that the name 'Jock Strap' was an apt pseudonym, starts out with, 'I heard some guy called Andy... can't recall his surname... but due to his rant about Ken Ring let's call him Andy Crapp. I recall a cartoon character Andy Cap but he was funny and relied on wit and good humour and not on personal character assassination. What a jerk this Andy Crapp is, my vision is that Andy would be no more than 5' 9' with a chest measurement of 35' fully puffed out with an ego matching Al Gores. So this pompous prat wants to debate with Ken Ring about pseudo-science does he?' And he ends with, 'Please, please however leave the personal attacks and character assassination crapp to the Aussie cricketers'.
Don't you just love someone that condemns another for 'personal attacks and character assassination', and yet he spends much of his own rant doing just that against farmer Andy Thompson. I don't know whether Ken Ring simply attracts gullible supporters that are incapable of censoring their abusive thoughts, or whether they are following his lead, since Ring certainly believes that to attack with venom is a winning strategy, and that well reasoned arguments are for wimps. And speaking of well reasoned arguments, or the lack of, using an argument that sounds very Ring-like, Jock Strap asks, 'Has our climate changed in the last month, year, decade, century, the last 20,000,000 years??' umm... yes it has Jock. 20 million years is a long time. Have you not heard of the Ice Ages for example, and if you have, do you deny them too? Ring is regularly on the Farming Show, and host Jamie MacKay is clearly sold on Ring's weather forecasting skills, but no matter how often Ring is on the radio, evidently his cult followers will stand for no challenges to their master's spiel, they must rush to his defence. They're a little like Muslim radicals but without the assault rifles.
But I was in the library, so unable to hear the interview, I decided to consult Ring's Almanac and see how he fared with predicting the fact that parts of NZ are now approaching drought conditions. I looked up his section called 'Regional rain summaries', thinking that this should highlight if rain is going to be well below average and thus raise an alert that there might be a drought. Areas that I personally know are suffering are Canterbury and South Canterbury. And yet surprisingly (well, not really), Ring has forecast that for Canterbury, January will be their wettest month of the year, with rainfall 108% above average. Not just normal rainfall, but over twice as much as normal. For South Canterbury, January will also be their wettest month of the year, with rainfall 73% above average. Looking at Coastal Otago, January will be their second wettest month, with 48% above average.
So for all you farmers in Canterbury and South Canterbury, if you think conditions are dry, it's just an illusion. The oracle has spoken and evidently you're receiving plenty of rain, so stop your bloody moaning!
Out of curiosity I looked at Ring's forecast for my local weather today: Rain. But the skies are clear and the sun is beaming, just as it was yesterday, even though Ring had forecast rain then too. Dunedin was also fine and dry yesterday and today, and yet Ring's forecast for yesterday was 'heavy rain' and for today, 'heavy rain, thunderstorms and local flooding likely'. I seriously doubt that Ken Ring's supporters have ever read his almanac. Just as Christians never read their Bible, just loving the idea that some god exists is enough for them, Ring's supporters love the idea that a simple astrologer can do what arrogant scientists can't. If both Jesus and Ring devotees would actually read and consider what their holy books said and predicted, they would be shocked to their core. But of course that's never going to happen. According to Ring many of his farmer clients can't even read.
-
Comment by Graham, 24 Jan, 2015
Hi John. Discussion of climate change was just a throwaway line in reference to the recent heat and not directed at Ken Ring. It was also phrased as a question, not a statement, because of course it's difficult to link individual weather or seasonal events to climate change. But that was more than enough to get a denier frothing at the mouth. Most of the interview was Andy calling Ken out on his incorrect ("outrageous/preposterous") forecast giving people false hope and the fact that Ken's method is pseudoscience. He also clearly defined what pseudoscience is, something which evidently went over Jock Strap's head.
We know Ken is a shonk, but the part I liked most about Andy's interview was when he took on the host for having Ken on his programme because of the reasons above. The hosts only defence: "he's good for ratings". Well maybe, so would the commander of ISIS if you could get him on. But that doesn't mean you should be giving him a forum to spout his views. Some people make financial decisions based on weather forecasts, a few make life and death decisions. Admittedly it's only the stupid ones who use Ken Ring's forecasts, so part of me thinks we should just let evolution take its course. But there's always collateral damage with things like this, and even smart people need the full set of information before making a decision. Having him uncritically interviewed on a supposedly intelligent programme gives him legitimacy.
Which is why I appreciate your site. It consistently comes up number 3 or 4 on a Google search for Ken Ring. So only a "Jock Strap" can miss the reality that Ken Ring's astrometeorology is pseudoscience.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jan, 2015
I quite agree with you Graham, and Andy, that 'Having him uncritically interviewed on a supposedly intelligent programme gives him legitimacy'. People believe in Ken Ring not because they buy his Almanac and find it to be accurate, but because they hear many people in the media treating him as a respectable expert that can be trusted. I don't understand the ethics of a radio host whose only defence is, "he's good for ratings".
I've read of many radio and TV producers and print editors, and have even been approached by a couple, that know perfectly well that some topic that they want to expound publicly on is utter bullshit, but they argue that many in their target audience believe in that particular nonsense so it's very good for ratings to give them what they want. Company profit is far more important than integrity and these people will happily pander to complete idiots pushing their silly beliefs. You only have to watch some of the pathetic programs pretending to be documentaries that screen on the likes of the Discovery and History channels to realise that producers don't want to solve mysteries and cut off a lucrative income. And do I need to mention TV's 'Sensing Murder', complete nonsense that the producers knew was a failure before the first series even went to air? But that didn't stop them making another four series simply because their moronic fans wanted more, even though one single skeptical episode would have exposed the truth about how they had to lie and cheat to make the program seem even remotely believable.
I heard a reporter interviewing a woman in the US yesterday who had accidentally left her baby in her car for several hours and returned to find him dead. The woman said something along the lines of, 'I immediately prayed to God for help'. Of course it would be insensitive, but how I wished the reporter had replied: 'And how did that turn out for you?' As a society we imply that the serious media actually deals in facts and will reveal the truth of the matter, even if it might be unsettling, and will put challenging questions to those that make claims that go against current knowledge. Of course the sorry reality is a media, with one or two rare exceptions, that happily promotes the like of Ken Ring and his pseudoscience, uncritically reports UFO and ghost sightings and keeps us well informed about celebrity love lives.
It's not surprising that many find Ken Ring's silly belief plausible when the media refuse to clearly reveal that astrology was exposed as nonsense long ago, and if Ring disagrees, they need to demand that he produces real evidence that his astrological method works before they have him back on. But of course that would hurt their ratings.
UPDATE: I've now heard the above interview and I enjoyed listening to one of Ring's beloved farmers intelligently criticise not just him and his methods but also the Farming Show's Jamie MacKay for promoting him. I agree completely with Graham's view of the interview. There was only one quick unanswered question about climate change and it made no reference to Ken's view. That it provoked Jock Strap's outburst is I think quite similar to how radical Muslims erupt violently at the slightest hint of a perceived insult. Andy correctly challenged Ken's methods because they clearly produce bogus results and are based on pseudoscience, and he rightly admonished Jamie for giving Ring unwarranted credibility on a serious show. Andy's final comment said it all: 'Ken Ring, what a clown'.
-
Comment by Miles, 24 Jan, 2015
Hi, John. Have you seen this?
'Seminar for farmers'
If I had the resources, I'd love to go and wind him up a bit.
Or we could let the Topp Twins loose on him .... um, perhaps not.
On the other hand, you might like to invite the readers of Silly Beliefs to either submit questions to Ring, or to write a keynote speech for him.
Ring has been changing his website over the last day or two. I have copies of his site, but not on this computer: I'll check some differences when I get home and let you have a quick summary.
Has Ring no shame? No honesty? The mind, as they say, wobbles!
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jan, 2015
Yes Miles, I had seen Ring promoting that seminar a while back, where he is one of the presenters. It just sounds like one of those many seminars or conferences run by the likes of New Age nutters, alternative therapists, UFO and Bigfoot spotters, conspiracy theorists and other flaky beliefs. The blurb says it's a 'HARMONIC RESEARCH WORKSHOP' and that your payment is to go to the 'Harmonic Research Project'. That phrase just screams pseudoscience and conspiracy theory, but a quick Google search reveals nary a hint as to what the 'Harmonic Research Project' actually is, and where your money is really going. My guess is that it's a research project dreamed up by Ring or his co-presenter to see how many people would be stupid enough to pay $500 (plus travel and accommodation costs) to listen to them describe how they can predict the future.
Ring writes that 'Many vital decisions nowadays are made on the basis of whims, educated guesses, hearsay, and recommendations... but we can go a step further and provide some real-time tools and methods...'. Reading between the lines here, what Ring means is that he will provide, not educated guesses, but uneducated guesses, or what he prefers to call 'opinions', all wrapped up with a good dose of primitive ignorance and tied with a cute ribbon made of superstitious nonsense. And it's just $500, which I'm sure won't include his latest Almanac, that will be extra, and luckily will be on sale all around the seminar venue.
In typical conspiracy mode, Ring laments that many farmers still fondly remember when 'sunspots and the orbits of planets' were used to accurately predict droughts, but that, 'In recent decades, longrange forecasting has been swept aside by the global warming industry, and the true science of cycles has been hijacked by tax-grabbing governments...' So again, what Ring is arguing here is that a decade or so ago, both farmers and meteorologists happily and reliably used the movements of the planets, ie astrology, to predict the weather. The trouble is that Ring is apparently reminiscing about how things work in Ringworld, and not how they have ever worked in the real world. How ridiculous it is for Ring to argue that we used to be able to reliably predict the weather long term, but now we've all forgotten how amazing the weather forecasts used to be before the evil scientists and governments took over. It's sad that Ring is spending more and more time in his fantasy world that is Ringworld, but it's worrying that he occasionally comes out and, like a deranged cult leader, drags the odd uninformed and gullible person back in with him.
It's quite depressing that as silly as this seminar sounds, and as expensive as it is, it will no doubt attract an audience. Some people are probably already planning which of their many tin foil hats they'll wear, checking their horoscope to find the best day to travel, and consulting Ring's Almanac to find out what weather they need to pack for.
-
Comment by Graham, 24 Jan, 2015
Ken Ring yet again fails in the most basic levels of research. I quick look at Inigo Jones' Wikipedia page shows he worked for Clement Wragge as a schoolboy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inigo_Owen_Jones. Clement Wragge was a meteorologist for the colony of Queensland at the end of the 19th century and is best remembered for naming cyclones. But he never worked for the Bureau as it was set up in 1908 after Federation. Inigo Jones never worked for the Bureau either. His conclusion that it was all about the alignment of the planets (astrology?) was discredited even back then.
I had a look to see who David Burton is. Like Ken he is positively, most definitely not an astrologer... no wait — The Corporate Astrologers' Team
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Jan, 2015
Thanks for the research Graham. Personally I think it's a pipe dream to expect Ring to ever report the facts, even if he's aware of them. Scammers at the very least always fudge the truth, and Ring is desperate to rewrite history to support astrology. Even though it's claimed that farmers supported Jones, how true is that really? since Ring also claims that farmers support him, but there is no independent evidence of this. And as you say Graham, Ring fails to mention that Jones was discredited, the Wikipedia article stating that (like Ring himself), 'Jones failed to have his methods recognised as soundly based by any substantial body of accredited scientific opinion', also that at the '1939 meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science (ANZAAS) his ideas on cyclical variations theory was severely discredited'.
Well done on discovering that David Burton, Ring's co-presenter at the seminar, is also an astrologer. I had a quick look at his listed website, but like Ring's own website, there is no clear mention that astrology is the basis of the predictions. However I got the feel that, even without discerning a link to astrology, I wouldn't trust David Burton with my money. Just look at some of the silly things he say on his website. For a start, like Ring he is dismissive of higher knowledge: 'All these people who have been to university, have degrees are the same people that sent the world into a financial meltdown. Not I or my clients lost a cent in the collapse. These people had no idea what was happening or more importantly what is going to happen next'. Burton then says that 'Even a squirrel prepares for the winter, not humans, they are to dumb'. Note how Burton refers to humans as 'they', as if he isn't one! We silly humans are dumb, but not him. Clearly Burton sources his knowledge of the world from books for pre-schoolers where rabbits wear waistcoats, dogs drive cars and squirrels order in an extra bushel of nuts just to be on the safe side. But the fact is that we humans have our houses insulated, we put antifreeze in our car's radiator, and as winter approaches we might check on the condition of our skis or look at shifting livestock to a warmer location. To argue that humans don't prepare for the winter or the future in general is just blind stupidity. Further on Burton insists that we should all have, 'of course three months off on holidays', since 'Humans aren't meant to work, no other animal does'. Animals don't work? Burton and Ring certainly are a perfect match in the utter nonsense they spout to promote their respective businesses. My impression is that most animals do little other than work. My dictionary defines work as 'Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something'. Throughout their waking hours animals appear to be striving to find food, shelter and to reproduce. This is the very definition of work. You don't see animals going on holiday or playing sport or watching TV. Animals may not be earning a wage or worrying about redundancy, but animals certainly do work. I've heard that bees toil to make honey and spiders work to spin webs to catch prey, are these just myths?
Even without the astrology connection Burton is not someone I would take advice from. But there is an astrology connection, which just means that Burton's credibility just got much worse. Looking at the link you provide Graham, we read that 'At Corporate Astrologers we currently have a team of two, David Burton and Elena Lazareva' and that 'David has focused on Mundane and financial astrology since 1980. David has been using astrology for financial investments, hedging currency, futures and trading markets since 1983... [and] teaching the trading methods of the greatest financial astrology of all time, W.D. Gann'. The obvious difference between Burton and Ring is that, while Burton does hide his astrology connection on his Commodity Hedging website, he is very open on this site that he uses astrology. And if you wonder whether his financial articles actually mention astrology nonsense, here is some text from a magazine he writes for.
'When you do this chart, you can see where it all started - it has a Jupiter conjunct Neptune (Jupiter expansion and Neptune illusions) in Libra. This happens in the 4th House of the home (real-estate). So we have the love (Libra) money (Jupiter) and illusion (Neptune) with debt...
The commodities boom took place whilst transiting Neptune conjunct natal Pluto on the 17th of March 2008. The bottom in the currency was when transiting Pluto sextiles natal Neptune and transiting north node opposite Natal Uranus in October 2008. You also need to have individual countries' birth chart of their currency. The Australian dollar chart from 1966 showed transiting Neptune conjunct Natal Mars in March 2015. The crash in 2008 showed transiting Saturn conjunct Natal Pluto and Uranus'.
So clearly Burton and Ring have a real kinship, united by a firm belief in superstitious nonsense. I also read that 'David's focus is to deal with individuals that have high net worth and corporations that can afford his expert advice'. Burton is clearly not completely stupid then, knowing that it makes good sense to target rich suckers. No wonder Ring wants to hang out with him, he might gain a rich benefactor.
In one sense it's a shame that we don't have laws to protect gullible people from the likes of Ring and Burton, but individual liberty must allow people to make foolish choices if they so choose. Throughout history ignorant people have sought out astrologers, soothsayers, oracles, witches, psychics, shaman and priests in an attempt to foretell the future, and clearly today's generation of ignorant people see no reason to stop.
-
Comment by Jamie, 12 Feb, 2015
Hi John, today I read that:
"A medium-adverse drought event will be declared in the South Island today. Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy will today meet with South Canterbury farmers to make the declaration and announce a Government assistance package."
I wonder what Ken will have to say on the Farming Show this month?
A reminder of what he said last time can be found here:
http://www.farmingshow.com/shows/the-rabobank-best-of-the-farming-show/audio/best-of-the-farming-show-24th-january-ken-ring/
Will he admit that he was wrong this time? I doubt it very much.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Feb, 2015
I doubt it too Jamie. I expect it's far more likely that the fairies at the bottom of my garden will reveal themselves and worship me as a god than we will hear Ken Ring admit that he was wrong. In no real way will he admit that he failed to predict this drought. He will either deny he ever said what he said, even if he is confronted with evidence of his duplicity, or he will argue that we are misinterpreting his stated opinions or that what is being experienced isn't really a drought at all, at least not in astrological terms. Let's remember that Ken can't even grasp how he could conceivably be wrong. He is on record stating that 'weather is an opinion-based product based on best-guessing... [and] By definition an opinion, just like a feeling cannot be wrong'. While I suspect that even most dim-witted people could be shown how silly that argument is, even when the flaws are pointed out to him Ring still struggles to see how his opinions and feelings could ever be wrong. If he was to have a feeling that there were monsters in his closet, then there must be.
Of course I don't really believe that Ring is quite this stupid. His main problem is that he's seeking profits rather than the truth. His business is built on lies, so new lies must be continually crafted to hide its many failures. Ring is in the unfortunate position that his income stream comes from a scam, but his ethical outlook clearly doesn't have a problem with this. Of course his silly arguments present him as a fool, but it pays the bills, and that's all scammers care about. Telling the truth won't make him rich or attract new clients, so we can expect desperate new lies on the Farming Show this month, which most likely won't be challenged to any real degree. They won't want to embarrass a guest that boosts their ratings.
-
Comment by Jamie, 16 Feb, 2015
Hi John. Poor Ken can't help himself. He must spend all day scouring the internet for blogs and discussions which expose his bullshit. Check out the comments section here [on 'Another Irishman's Diary']:
#kenringwatch results for November, December and 2014!
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Feb, 2015
Thanks Jamie, and as you say, poor Ken just can't help himself. I'm amazed that he can include so much nonsense in a few comments. But it does give us more to criticise. It's like there is a team of Ken Ring clones all independently writing nonsense and then their output is combined and only the best nonsense is included in his online comments. At times, even though I fight it, I can't but help feel sorry for him, destined to forever combat the unrelenting encroachment of knowledge. It must be a miserable existence, like a child continuing to believe in Santa Claus when all his friends have accepted the truth, and he resents them for it. No wonder he hates Christians, unable as he is to turn the other the cheek or love his critics as Jesus requested: 'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you'. Indeed, like the undead he must troll the Internet ceaselessly pleading with people to stop exposing his scam and mercilessly attacking those that won't submit.
I had to giggle on reading Ring's paranoid rant where he described you Jamie as 'one of this country's more persistent public nuisances', and that you (along with us) 'are perceived as troublemakers in this country because they contribute zilch to society'. How can Ring seriously argue this? Again I think Ring confuses what happens between his ears in what is known as Ringworld as to being somehow connected to events in the real world. I'm sure I could quiz a million Kiwis at random and none would have heard of 'Jamie', one of NZ's 'more persistent public nuisances', but how could this be if Kiwis, according to Ring, perceive Jamie as a real troublemaker? Ahhhh... of course, it's just another silly lie invented by Ring to deflect criticism from his scam. And of course, unlike fraudsters, we skeptics would argue that by exposing scams we do contribute in some small way to society, and unlike Ring, we offer our opinions for free.
He goes on to say that Jamie's 'modus operandi is ad hominen [sic]... No one attacks him first, or by name, the rebukes all go one way, which says much more about him and his sorry life than what he writes'. Can you imagine a Catholic priest accused of raping children using the same defence, the priest complaining that he never criticised his accuser in the media or named him, that all the accusations all go one way, all towards the priest? Well... duh, criticism is aimed at Ring because only Ring is claiming that he can reliably predict the weather and earthquakes. No one criticises Jamie because Jamie isn't fraudulently making money by making silly claims. Ad hominem means to make a personal attack on someone making an argument, for example calling him fat, rather than using logic and reason to attack the person's argument. Ring claiming that Jamie has a 'sorry life' is an ad hominem attack, where Ring ignores Jamie's criticism of his method and instead wants to focus on Jamie's life, as if that had anything to do with whether Ring can predict the weather. Likewise when Ring called me a 'misogynist... white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi... that hates Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews'. While totally untrue, even if I did hate women for example, this would have no bearing on my criticism of Ring using astrology to predict earthquakes. While falsely claiming that his opponents use it, it is Ring that embraces the ad hominem attack, regularly uttering abusive personal insults to deflect attention from the arguments aimed at his claims.
Ring claims that Jamie 'offers no constructive crtique [sic], nor rational science discussion, and... him and his colleagues... always hide furtively behind nom de plumes...self-appointed Thought Police like Jamie try... to tell everyone what to think, what views everyone must believe, and what not to buy'. For Ring to claim that Jamie and other skeptics offer no constructive critique or rational science discussion is of course a blatant lie. This is as childish as those Creationists that argue science offers no evidence for evolution. What Ring and Creationists both mean is that they are overwhelmed by the scientific argument and their only defence is to place their hands firmly over their ears and shout, 'I can't hear you!' This is classic denial mode. And he again reveals that he doesn't understand what ad hominem means by complaining that his critics 'always hide furtively behind nom de plumes'. Ring can't grasp that it doesn't matter if his critics are called Jamie or John or Brad Pitt. It's not about them personally, it's solely about their argument that Ring's method is pseudoscience. Ken needs to forget about trying to find out where Jamie lives and instead respond to questions about his method. And note that because Jamie occasionally expresses his view on one or two blogs, this leads Ring to describe him negatively as the 'self-appointed Thought Police'. Ring apparently thinks that Jamie can somehow force people to accept his viewpoint just by expressing it, probably through some sort of Jedi mind trick. This from a man that has written numerous books, has his own promotional website and regularly appears on TV and radio expressing his view. If Jamie's meagre comments in the blogosphere makes him an evil influence, then Ring must be the Darth Vader of evil influence, telling everyone what to think, what to believe and what to buy. Hint: it has 'Ken Ring' in the title.
In his comments he yet again attacks us at 'Silly Beliefs' as a 'fascist forum' that seeks:
'to shut down any alternative religious, medical or political viewpoints, on the grounds that if they are not mainstream they must by definition wrong, evil and blasphemic [sic]. That's the kind of society your favourite forum says they want... We threw that idea of a world out with Hitler, and now we are facing preventing the forcing of the same restrictive view of the world by Middle East radicals.'
Of course these are all lies and insults that Ring has trotted out on numerous occasions. Ring argues in his diatribe that according to the stance taken by 'Silly Beliefs' if viewpoints 'are not mainstream they must by definition [be] wrong, evil and blasphemic [sic]', and that 'Silly Beliefs' exists solely to attack any and all non-mainstream beliefs. Of course he will never provide evidence to support this argument, since none exists. Like his weather opinions, it's just something his childish mind dreamed up. Think about it. I'm an atheist, which certainly isn't a mainstream worldview. So according to Ring I must clearly know that atheism 'must by definition [be] wrong, evil and blasphemic [sic]'. So why am I not criticising atheism along with his astrology? Because I don't challenge a viewpoint based simply on how many people support it, on whether it is mainstream or not. I accept viewpoints based on reason and evidence, not on faith or primitive superstition. I don't follow the crowd. But Ring wants his followers to believe that we are ignorant, obsequious sheep, that we decry anything that the majority don't embrace, and not just because it's factually wrong, but also because it's 'evil and blasphemic'. But does that follow? Belief in the Tooth Fairy is definitely wrong, in that the Tooth Fairy doesn't really exist, but who would say that this childish belief is evil and blasphemous? Only Ken Ring would make this emotional and unwarranted connection. It's all about painting his opponents as unthinking thugs out to control the world. Hence Ring repeatedly compares us to fascists and Hitler and now even to Islamic butcherers such as ISIS. Clearly Ring has no real understanding of what the Nazis did to people they didn't agree with, and what the Islamists are doing now. We politely say on our website that we think Ring's astrological views are in error and have no evidential support, whereas Nazis and Islamists have slaughtered untold innocent people for challenging their views. And Ring can't see the difference. The comment was once made that, 'You epitome intolerance. You incite hatred. That's why, in the name of decency, democracy and discrimination you should be curbed...' But this wasn't uttered by someone horrified by the actions of the Nazis or the murderous Islamists in Iraq or Nigeria, it was made by Ken Ring against me for simply holding an opinion different to his. Because of the pseudoscientific nature of his business he's unable to argue that our stance is factually wrong, thus he argues that we are evil and need to be stopped. History is replete with shameful examples of how powerful people mistreated their critics, and it doesn't take much imagination to visualise what steps Ring would likely take against his critics if he wielded some real power over society. Thankfully Ring is just an odious nobody living far away from me. But I will be cleaning the guns just in case.
And to make things even worse, in a later comments Ring has the hypocrisy and arrogance to state, 'I attack no one, yet many attack me. So who is the bully?' Ring clearly has a problem, either forgetting this attack on us, or not grasping that spreading insulting lies behind someone's back is still an attack, a gutless one, but an attack nevertheless. And we've tried to explain to Ring in the past that a bully isn't someone who attacks, it's someone who victimises a much weaker opponent, knowing that they don't have the skills or strength or intellect to fight back. Apparently Ken sees himself as a weak victim unable to muster a defence. And if Ring feels he is being bullied, then he, according to my dictionary, is being 'frightened into submission, compliance, or acquiescence'. So why hasn't he submitted already? Why isn't he in his bedroom whimpering under the covers? The reality is that the only one trying to be a bully, trying to intimidate others, is Ring himself, with his threats of legal action, blackmail and disgusting insults.
I also noticed two more of Ring's inconsistencies in his comments, where is he forgets what is has written previously. Concerning how far in advance the predictions in his Almanac are actually composed, he first writes that 'my method gets this sort of thing correct, from a year away', then the very next day he writes, 'just as predicted nearly 2 years ago, which was when the almanac was written'. You'd think he'd make up a date and stick with it. Then concerning the number that subscribe to his newsletter, he writes about his '10,000-member free newsletter', and yet just a month before he claimed that 'there are 11,000 others who receive' it. Why has he now dropped back to 10,000 members? Can we believe either figure?
And just how much are gullible Irish people paying for Ring's worthless predictions? Ring writes, 'Yes, my book... As you say, it is €50 for 500 pages. At 365 predictions that's 7 pages for a pd, excellent value'. Excuse my ignorance, but can anyone explain what Ring means here? I know he falsely implies that he's a mathematician, but I'm not, so what does '7 pages for a pd' mean? What am I missing here? He claims to have taught maths to kids, so why isn't it clear to me what he means? Ignoring for the moment that his predictions are just nonsense, the amount that one paid per prediction might indicate whether they were value for money. At €50 for a year's worth of predictions, and if, as Ring does, we take that as '365 predictions', that means his clients are paying roughly 14c per prediction, and each prediction takes up an average of 1.4 pages in his book. 14c a day does seem quite cheap, but considering that his predictions are utterly bogus, anytime you hand over real money for something that is worthless you have been ripped off, and only a fool would think that their transaction represented 'excellent value'. Of course Ireland isn't NZ, but surely they have more important things that they could spend that €50 on (and which in NZ dollars is around $75)? I might also note that even though Ring writes, 'Yes, my book... is €50 for 500 pages', even here Ring can't get his facts straight. According to his own website, the book is actually €51 and 496 pages. Accuracy means nothing to Ring. But I'm still no closer to what the hell Ring means when he says, 'At 365 predictions that's 7 pages for a pd'. Or is this just another example of Ring saying something nonsensical and assuming that his silly clients won't notice?
Those of us skeptical of Ring's claims argue that the evidence clearly shows that his astrological based prediction method is nothing but pseudoscience and fails miserably. And yet Ring dismisses us as 'the tiny handful who don't understand the science of it and want me gone because they won't address their own ignorance-fear of something alternative'. He childishly argues that it is merely the scientifically illiterate who oppose him, when in reality it is his supporters that 'don't understand the science of it'. Contrary to what Ring believes, scientists didn't invent expensive satellites in an attempt to predict the weather simply because of their fear of using astrology.
Regarding the Christchurch earthquakes, Ring claims that he 'predicted... each of the major 4 shakes, using the lunar method... It was so successful that because people left town on the appointed days which saved many lives, the media and scientific world went bananas'. Clearly he thinks that Ireland being on the other side of the planet they won't know many of the details around the Christchurch earthquakes and his involvement, so he can spin his lies with immunity. Like that there were two major quakes, not four, and that he didn't clearly and unambiguously predict a single major quake or aftershock. Many people did indeed flee the area based on some of his predictions, but no serious quakes occurred at those times, and the media and scientific world did in a sense go bananas, but only to ridicule him and to question why intelligent people should be taking him seriously. He implies that he was a hero, when in fact he was viewed as a villain and he fled into hiding, fearing for his life. He refused media interviews because they wanted to grill him, not praise him. And note that the only print media interest was from women's gossip magazines who, suspiciously, Ring claims both offered the same amount, not from the likes of 'New Scientist' or 'Scientific American'. They were interested not in the science but in the scandal, of how Ring went from a little known weather eccentric to NZ's most hated astrologer, the man who terrified many with claims of a coming major earthquake that 'could be another for the history books', a quake that, of course, never happened. Unfortunately almost no one in the media wanted to talk about the lack of science in Ring's predictions. And of those that did want to talk science, Ring didn't want to talk to them. Thus by lying low for a while Ring's business survived, whereas if the serious media had taken the time to investigate and offer an exposé of Ring's method most of New Zealand would now see what a silly belief it really is.
-
Comment by Jamie, 18 Feb, 2015
Update: Ken was interviewed on the Farming Show yesterday:
http://www.farmingshow.com/on-demand/audio/ken-ring-the-moon-man-172/
Still no admission that he was wrong about the drought. No surprises there. However, I can hear the desperation in his voice.
I'm looking forward to the "Head-to-Head" with a real weatherman.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Feb, 2015
Thanks Jamie. I noticed that when you asked on the Irish forum if Ring would admit that he was wrong about a drought, he replied: 'Oh dear, you'd better take a look at this', and linked to a weather map prediction. He then added that, 'The big front crossing the South island tomorrow is right on cue... I know you must be gutted everytime my method gets this sort of thing correct...'
To me the implication is that Ring still denies the drought and that plenty of rain was coming the next day. But maybe he should have waited until the drought breaking rainfall actually arrived before crowing about how great his prediction would be. A week later, and while there has been a little rain in some places, the drought conditions haven't dramatically changed.
As for Ring going "Head-to-Head" with a real weatherman, Ring would no doubt avoid this as a vampire avoids sunlight. And most weathermen, like most scientists, would be utterly ignorant of the claims that Ring has made over the years and will have done no research into the accuracy of his method. Many think that Ring is indeed a scientist, albeit a scientist that is wrong, and most would probably believe him when he showed them the tweet that predicted the Christchurch quake. Like most evolutionists that debate Creationists, they would be out of their depth, and would likely lose the debate in the public mind. Remember how John Campbell's combative interview on TV3 over quake predictions actually boosted Ring's support base even though Ring said very little?
-
Comment by Mikaere, 18 Feb, 2015
Hi John. I guess we've had quite a few moon phases since the two big earthquakes in Christchurch. Be interesting to see current data although this article — 'Ken Ring can't predict earthquakes either', although dated, says it all. That bit about saving lives is worrying.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 19 Feb, 2015
Ring in my view is like some geriatric golfer continually reminding us how he scored a hole in one way back in 1956, and glossing over the embarrassing fact that he's never been even close to doing it again. We can all see that the hole in one was clearly a fluke, as it was with Ring and his Christchurch quake prediction. And like many stories that the elderly retell, they embellish it over the years. As you say, it is worrying that Ring now falsely claims that his prediction meant that 'people left town on the appointed days which saved many lives'. There is no evidence of this whatsoever, it is merely Ring deviously rewriting history to place himself on a pedestal. Rather than predicting 'each of the major 4 shakes', Ring actively suppresses what he was actually telling the public after Christchurch's Sep 2010 quake and prior to the deadly Feb 2011 quake. Here are just some of his predictions from that time:
'There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur...'
'...it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place.'
'I would still not consider that another massive earthquake is certain, in fact I think it's more likely not to be the case in Christchurch.'
'...Christchurch might well be one of the safest places.'
Oh how wrong he was, and how desperate he is to hide the clear fact that he was just guessing. Like our geriatric golfer who only wants to talk about his hole in one and not his pathetic record since, Ring doesn't want us to dwell on his mountain of failures either, in fact he doesn't even want us to know that he has been wallowing in failures.
And when I think about it, if Ken Ring influenced public attitudes and behaviour at all, rather than save lives as he claims to have done, he could have actually contributed to the loss of life, since his public comments reassuring them that they were in the safest place and that a second quake was unlikely would have encouraged people to stay in the city and, if anything, have given people no reason to make no preparations for another quake. Thanks to his proclamations they were caught unawares, and 185 people died. That said, I doubt if Ring influenced anyone all that much in the lead up to the deadly quake, since even now I am gladdened immensely when I mention Ken Ring's name and people reply that they've never heard of him. Thankfully Ring is not the celebrity that his ego thinks he is.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Feb, 2015
Is Ken Ring really the ignorant fool that he portrays in online forums, or is it just an act that he hopes might confuse and frustrate his critics? Ring ceaselessly trolls the Internet in search of people discussing his prediction claims, and being generous, one would assume that he does this in an attempt to explain and defend his claims with reason and evidence. However it soon becomes clear that Ring's input is not to elucidate but to intimidate his critics, and in doing so silence any and all dissent. He understands that some people may disagree with him, but implores them to keep their opinions to themselves, since negative publicity could ruin his business. Ring doesn't view any discussion of his prediction success as an honest exchange of views, as a genuine attempt to understand what science there might be behind his method, he views any and all discussion as an attack on him personally by mean bullies. He doesn't see it as a chance for honest debate, an opportunity to present his evidence, he responds to any and all questions as a cornered wild animal would respond, with snarls. Every question about his method is seen as a threat, where any answer from him, honest or otherwise, runs the risk of exposing his scam, so anyone honestly expressing an opinion or raising a query will soon see Ring pushing the big red button labelled 'Attack Mode'.
For example, when his embarrassing failure to predict the recent drought in parts of NZ's South Island was highlighted (on an Irish forum), Ring quickly went on the offensive, agreeing that, 'Yes, I do go into attack mode when people attack me first. Doesn't everyone? I can't stand bullies, they are the scum of the earth'. Ah yes, exposing Ken Ring's failures is much worse it seems than... oh I don't know... Muslims beheading innocent people on the street, priests raping children, thieves stealing your life savings or drug dealers selling cocaine to your kids. Is Ring really so ignorant that he thinks that someone exposing one of his failures has committed a most heinous crime, the worst imaginable? Governments worldwide are currently debating what they can do to eliminate the threat from Islamic terrorists, especially the groups know as Islamic State (or ISIS) and Boko Haram. Are they wrong, should we instead be demanding that they turn their attention to bullies, 'the scum of the earth'? And while I don't like bullies, are people that expose scams actually bullies? Someone expresses an honest opinion on an Irish Internet forum and Ring flies into a rage. He already has the beard, so how long will it be before he starts screaming, 'Behead those who insult weather predictions based on astrology'? The only person that is acting like a bully, that is aggressively trying to intimidate others, is Ring himself.
And why does Ring think that he can say that there is no drought, contrary to what the government has said? Well, according to Ring, 'No one knows what a drought is because it changes according to opinion'. That's right, evidently no one knows what this thing we call a drought actually is. Maybe it's a couple of days without rain, maybe it's a vicious predator found in the Amazon or maybe it's a new flavour of ice cream. Your opinion as to what a drought might be is just as valid as anyone else's. Like you, experts such as meteorologists have an opinion as to what a drought might be, but apparently their opinion carries no more weight than does that of a mechanic, or an astrologer. And maybe you think that you do indeed know what a drought is, but Ring continues, '... don't tell me you know what a drought is, that just shows me you need to do more research. It's like saying you know what love or unhappiness is'.
Really Ken, you seriously don't know what love or unhappiness is either? Really? When Ring makes such moronic claims it convinces me that he is an ignorant fool, that it's not just an act on his part. Who but a fool would argue that they don't know, and in fact no one knows, what love or unhappiness is? Ken Ring aside, all sane people know when they are in love or are loved or are unhappy. Even if Ring does secretly know, who but a fool would think that we don't know? The arguments that Ring comes up with to support his nonsense are pathetic in the extreme. Even if we ignore how stupid it is to say that no none knows what love or unhappiness is, it's also ignorant to argue that 'No one knows what a drought is'. In the past Ring has deviously redefined words such as science, climate, astrology, skeptic, prediction and opinion to give false support to his claims, but the reality is that my dictionary clearly defines a drought as 'A long period of abnormally low rainfall, especially one that adversely affects growing or living conditions'. Note that it's generally not just a period without rain, it's also the effect this lack of rainfall has on the environment. Mired in primitive astrology, Ring may disagree with this definition, but the reality is that in general terms this is the widely accepted definition of a drought. Sorry Ken, but educated, informed people do know what a drought is. And in this specific case it is an event you failed to predict, and your childish wordplay does nothing but demonstrate what ridiculous steps you'll take to try and hide your failure.
On the forum Ring also produced this pathetic argument (again) as to why his almanac must be valid: 'ask yourself why farmers buy my forecasts. Ask yourself why my almanacs have been going for 17 years. Do you know something they don't? Doesn't that insult their collective intelligence??' For one, Ken is wrong to imply that farmers are buying his forecasts en masse, they're not, only a few silly ones are. Probably the same ones that consult psychics and treat their animals with homeopathic remedies. And his argument is flawed and naïve since just because a few people have been buying his almanacs for a few years doesn't prove that they contain accurate forecasts. Horoscope books sell in much greater numbers every year, and even Ring knows they offer nothing but nonsense, insisting that 'Modern astrology has been denigrated to a party and coffee table game'.The Bible has been going for nearly 2,000 years and the Koran for over a 1,000 years, a lot longer than Ken's meagre 17 years, and half the planet's population believe in them. So ask yourself Ken, must they be true because they have been going for so long? By your logic they must, and yet I know that you don't believe either the Bible or Koran are true, so I'll repeat your question back to you, 'Do you know something they don't? Doesn't that insult their collective intelligence??' Regardless of how many people keep buying holy books, Ring would still argue, and rightly so, that they are promoting nonsense. He would not accept the argument that large volume book sales support the validity of religion, but he uses the identical argument to support his claims. We've debated this point with Ring in the past, and he is seemingly incapable of grasping why his book sales in no way support the validity of his method. He is either too foolish to grasp the logic, or if he can, foolish enough to think that no one else will. Of course his clients will readily fall for his childish arguments, that's the nature of all scams, but he reveals that he's truly a fool by deliberately seeking out intelligent informed skeptics and naively expecting that his arguments will still succeed. Most scammers, psychics for example, know to avoid skeptics like the plague, they know that any engagement can only end badly for them, but Ring foolishly thinks that he can convince rational, scientifically minded individuals that he can predict the weather and earthquakes by using what he calls 'ancient astrology'. And he thinks he can do this, not by producing evidence that his method is accurate, the way real science works, but simply by presenting arguments that wouldn't fool your average kindergarten graduate, and when that invariably fails, he resorts to intimidation in the form of abusive insults. His final act is always to stomp off expressing unwarranted indignation.
Surely only a genuine fool, someone truly lacking comprehension of how poorly they are performing, of how silly they appear, of how laughable their attempts to challenge science are, would deliberately troll Internet forums and actively seek to engage with their critics? Ring should have long ago learnt that skeptics will naturally ask him probing questions regarding his method, will request evidence of his claims, will not be fooled by childish arguments and will not be intimidated by insults and threats of legal action. Even lab rats don't take this long to train, they quickly grasp which places are best avoided. But not Ken, he keeps coming back for more, apparently oblivious of past experiences and what is expected in terms of evidence. As they say, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so we can expect to see Ring run tearfully from many more forums in the future.
-
Comment by Jamie, 23 Feb, 2015
I notice that Ken has been very quiet lately (except for his comments on the Irish blog). There's been no new updates on his website for over a month, and no new tweets since 30th January. Has he semi-retired, I wonder?
Or perhaps he was waiting for a big earthquake to occur between 19th-21st February — as per his last tweet:
"Highest tidal variation of year + second closest perigee make 19-21 Feb a high earthquake risk time. Dry NZ first half Feb. Rain about 14th."
Oh dear, how wrong could he possibly be? There were no significant earthquakes worldwide between 19-21st. In fact, it was very quiet indeed. Here is a list of worldwide quakes in the last 7 days, above mag 4.5 (according to USGS):
4.5225km SW of Tomatlan, Mexico2015-02-22 14:36:21 UTC10.0 km
6.2218km SW of Tomatlan, Mexico2015-02-22 14:23:13 UTC10.0 km
4.7112km SW of Mapastepec, Mexico2015-02-20 22:50:59 UTC41.6 km
4.527km W of Jesus Carranza, Mexico2015-02-20 02:05:05 UTC83.4 km
4.52km NNE of Pedro Garcia, Dominican Republic2015-02-18 19:58:16 UTC16.1 km
4.519km SW of Canas, Costa Rica2015-02-18 13:12:25 UTC52.8 km
So, the only quake above 5 mag occurred on the 22nd.
His rain "opinion" wasn't much better. There was no significant rain anywhere that mattered on the 14th, and there hasn't been any since. Still drought conditions in the east of the south island. In fact, in Christchurch so far this month, there has been more rain in the first half of Feb, than the second half.
I've started to wonder if Ken might be on to something. Perhaps if we take his predictions, and pretend that he actually said the opposite, then they might be worthwhile!
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Feb, 2015
Hi Jamie. The thought of Ken Ring retiring, now there's something to look forward to! Along with wishing for world peace, I suspect Ring's retirement is what a lot of sensible people hope for when they see a shooting star or snap a wishbone.
But like Darth Vader, Ring does keep a low profile at times, probably needing some quiet time to make up some new excuses as to why his predictions have failed. Again.
And speaking of earthquakes, on TV last night I watched the documentary called 'Aftermath: Where the faults lie', which looked at the faults that caused the 2010/2011Canterbury quakes. Ring must be absolutely livid that they made no mention whatsoever of him predicting the quakes or of the many lives he saved. There was no mention of a stature or even a plaque being planned. By omission the documentary makers and the experts interviewed essentially implied that Ring played no part in the events and are seemingly rewriting history to leave him out of it. No doubt he is instructing his lawyers in Ringworld to seek huge damages and a published apology as I write this. How could they have been so foolish to think that they could cross the Moonman? Now they must suffer his wrath!
-
Comment by Ron, 09 Feb, 2015
Greetings John. Been busy indulging in some correspondence with Ken Ring inbox to inbox over several days recently. This resulted in much pent up anger and hate coming my way, laced with intimidation and accusations. The exchange came as a result of me continuing to challenge him and call him out, as I've done on SB for some yrs, re. his poor success rate of around 25% shown up in Ireland and NZ, his unproven methods and his constant claims of high success. Like the Irish blogger it brasses me off that he makes money from this. I pointed out to him that my intention is to motivate would be gullibles to at least do some research and become more aware before blindly parting with their cash. I believe SB has a wealth of material to this end where readers can judge for themselves.
Ken is different in private emails as opposed to forums where he appears more wary of impressions. As he chooses not to write here I've opted to act as go-between by quoting mainly 3 emails he sent. I have his okay to post them on SB.
Repetition, personal non-relevant stuff and the same old verbiage already in SB has been deleted ensuring the meaning or message is unchanged. In an earlier email he accuses me of being SB's puppet, that we mercilessly attack and bully and that fascism has no place in modern society.
[From Ken Ring]
"What a pity you don't extend a spirit of tolerance and grace towards me, my staff and clientele for doing what we believe in. My work seems highly regarded in Australia as I provide long range reports for Aust. farmers and corporations, incl. lecture tours. You insult all of them assuming you know more than they re. the value of the lunar method of forecasting. That makes you a supreme snob. I've never attacked you or your fascist friends in any blog that deplores alternative viewpoints and ways of interpreting science. Remember the bully is always the one who starts the fight. That means SB, Another Irishmans diary and you, for you always attack first. This is not clever debating, only internet thuggery. I don't write to SB as I will not engage with fascists, esp. faceless cowards hiding behind non-de-plumes. I'm aware all I write will appear on SB and Irish blogs as you clearly require moral support for your hate. Ponder the origin of "John" and your issues of anger management and intolerance. Sounds like nothing to do with my work. I say this from my experience as a former education psychologist and therapist. I'm sure you and "John" will have a lot of fun with that one which will validate what I just said. The more you both rant the bigger the hole you dig. There is a better way. Christianity and democracy".
"Many who read SB email me with disgust and expressions of support for what I'm trying to do. Some, like a recent farmer who got an ear bashing for saying he followed my work, have tried to post to SB but were bullied for their opinions, give up and correspond with me instead. Gives me more supporters. Not everyone is as righteous and on their moral and ethical high horse as you and "John" like to think you are. Why do you think SB has been banned from libraries? Fascism, that's why. Ask a librarian, as I did. It is perceived as a nasty website, full of vitriol, hate speech and discriminatory principles, more divisive than helpful. You and your spiteful kind are the minority and thank God for that. Shame on you for buying into SB's supremacist nonsense. Shame on you for your intolerance. I have a right to my opinions without interference — bill of rights. If you suggest I have no right to my opinions or how I make my living and because you disagree on scientific terms, as to how I make my income at all you need to appreciate the difference if you want to remain within the law which is set up to protect small businesses from slander. The past 6 yrs I've been employing people who would not otherwise get work. By financially trying to undermine me and my staff you threaten to seriously affect the health and wellbeing of over 12 small children. I hope that helps you sleep well. By all means post this to SB. Let the silent readers who are too scared to post there see your name and associate you with the nearest thing to a NZ Gestapo. I've already had mail asking who you are. It's no more your right to call me to account than Hitler who ordered Jewish businesses closed due to his dislike of them. We are minding our own business. Try to do the same".
"All my email is filtered by my staff. It means your hate and name is read by 12 or so and maybe their friends before it gets to me. You have made yourself a talking point. What will it achieve, the deeper you get the worse the end game. I had never heard of SB until they started attacking me and my friends. You will find NZ courts accept self defense as reason to retaliate but find the fight starter culpable. You think we are selling something suspect. We are told we have saved farms from economic ruin. Our income is mostly from Aust. farmers who re-order year after year. I'm invited as guest speaker annually. What I do is for them. You really have no business reading my work if you are not in my farmer clientele, it is not intended for your eyes. Otherwise your actions are labeled a public mischief. By spreading such in a public forum you and SB lay yourselves wide open to legal action when the Govt. gets into line with international law in this area. This is not a threat but we are watching the situation carefully and taking legal advice. We hurt no one. You, on the other hand are doing cyber vandalism".
All very over the top John I think. Calling him out and my support for you and SB is like a red rag to a bull. Ken only sees someone "attacking" him and funny how the law as he sees it always favours him, not his critics. And all these people who read his emails before him? Weird. He talks as if I'm a co-owner of SB and like we are in cahoots to finish him off. I commend Ken if he truly does employ those people with certain needs but feel he is playing the emotion card strongly. And "public mischief"? I have never owned or had loaned to me an almanac of his .I only quote from his newsletters. Surely if a friend had a copy and loaned it that is our business and nothing he can do. Ken said in the Irish forum "is this the NZ weather forum now, well, bring it on". Problem is when you do "bring it on" you soon have "attack" and "hate" labels thrown at you. Hopeless. As for the psychologist revelation it explains heaps, eg. paranoia, excessive analyzing of some commenters, odd statements. Anyway, what is Ken worried about re. his bottom line. What about all those yearly re-ordering farmers and the supporters SB sends to him due to our "rants". Plus those gullibles who will never read a forum or do basic research, but sign up anyway.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Feb, 2015
Excellent work Ron in luring Mr Ring into the light, you will be well rewarded when our plans for world domination finally come to fruition. [Insert evil laugh here]
The good thing about Ken Ring (I never thought I'd ever say that!) is that when he writes from his dark heart he never fails to deliver a wealth of bovine excrement. His venom really speaks for itself, exposing him as a true wolf in sheep's clothing. But I know Ring would naively take it as a small victory, that we were intimidated by his talk of legal action, if we didn't respond and expand on some of his literary fictions. So here goes.
As you rightly point out Ron, it's 'funny how the law as he sees it always favours him, not his critics'. He calls his critics fascists and repeatedly likens us to Hitler, and yet he's the one that seeks oppressive and dictatorial control by refusing to extend freedom of speech to his critics, and he can't wait until the 'Govt. gets into line' and starts silencing his critics.
He writes that we should 'extend a spirit of tolerance and grace towards me, my staff and clientele for doing what we believe in'. But we do tolerant Ring's business, that's why we're not partitioning the authorities to have him closed down or fire-bombing his kitchen. And like Ring, we're also doing what we believe in — exposing scams. We're not telling Ring that we won't tolerant his presence, we're merely saying we disagree with his publicly expressed opinions on weather and earthquakes. Just as Ring demands his right to criticise those that talk of climate change, we likewise demand our right to criticise those that promote astrology. And the 'grace' that Ring requests can mean either mercy or an exemption, but why does Ring deserve either?
Ring goes on to argue that by criticising his method we are by association criticising all his clients: 'You insult all of them assuming you know more than they... That makes you a supreme snob'. If he means that we're suggesting that his clients might all be gullible fools for listening to him then... oh alright, we'll give him that one. But not the 'supreme snob' gibe. If I were to argue that astrologers and witches are talking nonsense, that doesn't make me a snob, it makes me right.
I see that for the millionth time Ring again claims that 'I've never attacked... your fascist friends in any blog'. And yet a couple of lines later he's calling us 'faceless cowards' and even in the denial itself he attacks us by referring to us as 'your fascist friends'. How many times must we remind him he's called me, among other things, a 'misogynist... white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi... that hates Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews'. Ring is like a parrot, although not quite as bright, that blindly trots out the same angry responses even though he knows they've all been exposed as lies.
Ring again shows that he doesn't understand what our website is about, falsely claiming that it's a 'blog that deplores alternative viewpoints'. Rubbish. It's a website the deplores silly beliefs, beliefs like astrology and religion that are based on pseudoscientific and superstitious nonsense. I hold many views that aren't mainstream, for example I'm an atheist, and as the world goes, that's an alternative viewpoint, so if Ring were right I would deplore my own beliefs.
Ring claims that he 'had never heard of SB until they started attacking me and my friends'. Say what... Ken has friends? What friends of yours are we attacking Ken? Christian fundamentalist Ian Wishart perhaps, you did turn up defending him at one stage. Or are your friends the psychic mediums claiming to talk to dead people, or perhaps the Muslim terrorists slaughtering the innocent? And for the record, we didn't 'attack' you first (as if it matters), you attacked us by insulting our intelligence with your publicly expressed weather predictions. We merely responded before more brain cells were harmed.
I see that Ring is reinventing his past again, now he's claiming to have worked as an 'education psychologist and therapist'. He doesn't talk much about his work as a clown anymore for some reason (And yes that photo really is Ken when he worked as a clown). How can someone that failed university, and not even remember how long they spent there or what subjects they studied, now claim to be qualified to have worked as a psychologist? Unless he lied about his qualifications to get the job, or got one of those fake degrees from the Internet. Which is it Ken? The way he's going he'll be claiming to be a rocket scientist and an ex-pope next. This is classic scam behaviour, inventing qualifications to impress and intimidate.
And what the hell does Ring mean by saying that, 'There is a better way. Christianity and democracy'. Ring hates Christianity with a passion, blaming it for the demise of his beloved astrology. In a recent article Ring wrote that 'We do not leave it up to God to decide — we seek assurances from people who have slide rules, not bibles'. But in his email to you Ring argues that 'Christianity and democracy' are our saviour. At one stage he even adds 'and thank God for that', and yet my understanding is that Ring is an atheist. What a hypocrite, he'll say anything, whether he believes it or not.
Ring then asks, 'Why do you think SB has been banned from libraries? Fascism, that's why. Ask a librarian, as I did. It is perceived as a nasty website, full of vitriol, hate speech and discriminatory principles, more divisive than helpful'. More lies I'm afraid, but I'm not surprised. Our website is not banned at all, and Ring never asked or received that answer from any librarian. Ask a librarian and they will tell you that they have nothing to do with banning websites, that it's done by a third party content filtering service. Access to our website has been stopped on two occasions, but on contacting the people controlling the library Internet, on both occasions they apologised, unblocked our website and said they didn't know why access had been restricted in the first place.
Next we have Ring tearfully pleading with Ron that 'I have a right to my opinions without interference... If you suggest I have no right to my opinions or how I make my living... blah blah blah'. Of course you have a right to your opinions Ken, stop pretending that anyone has ever said otherwise. We're not trying to steal your opinions, you're welcome to them, what we're saying is that your opinions are bullshit, based as they are on primitive superstitious nonsense and outright lies. That's our opinion, that we also have a right to hold. You indeed have a right to make a living as you wish, just as a prostitute or drug dealer does, but that doesn't mean that we have to approve of your business choice, and it doesn't mean that we can't criticise the way you choose to get money from people.
And as I've told you before Ken, a publicly expressed opinion is not slander or libel if it's true. You might want to tell your lawyers that, since apparently they don't know.
I wonder what Ring means when he says that he's 'employing people who would not otherwise get work'. Are they astrologers perhaps, or psychics or severely intellectually impaired to believe in what he does? Clearly they're not anyone that knows anything about meteorology, science, computers or business administration or else they could get work. So it looks like we've got a head clown managing a... umm... what's a group of clowns called?
And yes Ron, I also was intrigued by Ring saying that 'All my email is filtered by my staff. It means your hate and name is read by 12 or so and maybe their friends before it gets to me'. Is Ring's staff handing all his personal email around not just the entire office, but flipping it off to their friends as well? Apparently so. And has he really got 12 staff working for him, what the hell do they all do? Although he also mentioned that his staff had '12 small children', so perhaps it's the small children that are getting to read his hate mail before he sees it. I think a certain clown needs to put his big foot down and sort out his office staff.
And what a little tantrum it is when Ring says, 'You really have no business reading my work if you are not in my farmer clientele, it is not intended for your eyes. Otherwise your actions are labeled a public mischief'. But as you say Ron, Ring happily sent you his weather predictions even though you weren't part of his farmer clientele, also his books are freely available in bookshops and libraries and he appears on TV and radio pushing his opinions. Since Ring places his opinions in the public domain and seeks widespread penetration of his ideas, it's all rather childish to now say that we shouldn't be reading it. The reality is that no one can form an opinion on Ring's claims until they read his opinions, and if they then decide that it all smacks of soothsaying, well they can't then delete that realisation. And on realising that there's a scammer in their midst, what does the honest person do? Turn a blind eye and let their friends and associates be scammed of money better spent on necessities, or speak out and expose the evil one? Like you Ron, we at 'Silly Beliefs' were not tempted or cowed by the Dark Side, even though our stance exposes us to his wrath.
And to all you 'silent readers who are too scared to post' on this website... BOO!
-
Comment by Rob, 09 Mar, 2015
Ken's latest letter to Ron just seems sad.
"your actions are labeled a public mischief. By spreading such in a public forum you and SB lay yourselves wide open to legal action when the Govt. gets into line with international law in this area."
If nobody is publishing lies about Ken and only the truth (as is on this page and others), he will have an extremely hard time taking it to court.
I also decided to look up some current definitions of "public mischief" in overseas laws. It basically refers to wasting police time...
(a) — making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) — doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) — reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) — reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
So if Ken decides to bring "public mischief" charges, he may find that he his simply making himself look a fool again.
He should think about his staff, and how they are going to feed their families before he starts playing such a poor hand.
It looks like a glorious sunrise over Auckland today. That's the way to see the weather, open a window or a door and look outside.
And you are right, your website isn't blocked in the public libraries I visit... Perhaps Ken's should be. Now that would be a fun project.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Mar, 2015
Hey Rob, thanks for that piece of research, and based on that I think any attempt at legal action on Ring's part would see the charge of 'public mischief' clearly falling back on Ring himself, and as you say, he makes a fool of himself yet again.
And I'm intrigued by this new weather prediction method you propose. Just look out the window you say?
-
Comment by Jamie, 10 Mar, 2015
Hi John, I'd like to thank Ron for sharing his correspondence with Ken. I've also experienced Ken's charm during email exchanges in the past. Very funny indeed. Very insightful too.
Meanwhile, I think that Ken might be desperately trying to score a "hit" with his "Canterbury rain relief" predictions.
He has just tweeted:
"Do NZ farmers want free longrange info? Jamie Mackay says no, so no more Farming Show interviews.
Meanwhile Canterbury getting rain relief."
I guess with "Canterbury getting rain relief", he is referring to his tweet on 1st March:
"Relief rain for Canterbury and dry areas expected around 6 and 16 March, and first week April. Wet autumn expected except for top of SI."
But as another tweeter named "Redweed" has pointed out:
"Is that new relief, or the January and February relief coming late?"
Ken also tweeted on the 3rd March:
"Relieving rains in South Island now less than a week away, as we said. Dry should persist in parts of Otago and at very top of South island"
and Redweed responds:
"Actually you said relieving rains would be on 21-22 Jan and mid Feb. Didn't happen. Keep guessing, you'll get it eventually"
I couldn't have put it better myself!
I also note on Ken's tweet today, that he has got "the pip" with Jamie Mackay from The Farming Show. I was waiting for that to happen. It seems Jamie has finally seen the light.
Going back to Ken's rain relief predictions. The most spectacular fail this year, has been his prediction of a dry first half of February and a wet second half of February for the East of the South Island. With a good dumping of rain predicted for around the 14th.
Click the following to view the metservice february rain charts for Blenheim, Christchurch and Timaru. He couldn't have been more wrong if he tried!
He's also had a spectacular earthquake prediction fail recently as well. On 1st and 2nd March, he tweeted:
"Southern hemisphere of the sun faces earth's southern hemisphere on 3 March. Means seismic risk this week until the 7th."
"Strong seismic risk next 2-3 days. Most likely dawn or dusk and at low tide time eastern North island. Something to watch. Hope all safe."
Poor Ken. I really think he is losing the plot. Sad.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Mar, 2015
Hi Jamie, and yes, I heard the Farming Show interview today. Excellent, as Monty Burns would say. (Listen online here.) I heard Jamie MacKay say yesterday that he was going to take him to task, saying that 'I don't like Ken when he's talking about earthquakes'. He loves his weather stuff though. Anyway, for those that didn't hear it, Jamie immediately went on the offensive, asking Ring, Why do you deal in earthquakes?, and Ring responded, 'Well, it's my job as a long range forecaster!'. This is the first time I've heard Ring clearly admit that earthquake prediction is part of his business, normally he argues that he only deals in weather, and earthquakes are just something he drops the odd hint about, they're not what his job is about. Now it is evidently.
Jamie's argument was simply that no one has shown that they can predict earthquakes, but unfortunately he knew nothing about the claims Ring has made, and how they are all lies. Thus when Ring claimed to have predicted certain quakes and saved lives, Jamie had no answer beyond saying that Ring had scared a lot of Christchurch people 'shitless' with his predictions. Ring immediately got defensive and hissy, and soon said to Jamie that if they didn't want to hear his weather opinions then maybe they should stop calling him. Unfortunately for Ring, but fortunately for us, Ring's abrasive challenge backfired and Jamie said OK, and politely ended the interview, cutting it well short. Jamie didn't even get to discuss the drought which was the main reason Ring was on the air. Of course being the pro that he is, Ring still managed to get some insults in, his best being that NZ farmers aren't real farmers, not like the Australians. It wasn't long before NZ farmers were tweeting, 'So Ring doesn't think we're real farmers?'
Afterwards Jamie said several times that 'Well that could be the last interview that we ever have with Ken Ring', so I just hope that Jamie or his producers don't capitulate and bring him back. Unfortunately Jamie still thinks Ring is a weather guru, and as Ring was getting annoyed Jamie reminded him that 'I am a defender of you'. Jamie also thinks Ring is a great guy. He doesn't know him like we do, a liar, a cheat and someone who quickly turns nasty when criticism is raised. He should read Ring's emails to Ron above and discover the man behind the mask.
UPDATE: 11 Mar.
Oh dear. Ring has now posted the following on an Irish forum:
kenmoonman on March 11, 2015 at 1:47 am said:
New update, the Farming Show host has emailed me "I apologize unreservedly for..not showing respect"
Read the comments. People are appalled and disgusted that in this day and age media and scientists want to close down alternative opinion. Witch-burning continues. Shame on Jamie and co.
If true, it might signal that Jamie MacKay and the Farming Show are having second thoughts about their valuable ratings and are mending bridges and sending fruit baskets. I hope I'm wrong.
Of course the full email might have said 'I apologize unreservedly for not showing respect... but there's no way in hell you're ever coming back on my show!' I doubt it, but Ring is infamous for quoting out of context. I mean, look where he falsely claims that 'People are appalled and disgusted that... scientists want to close down alternative opinion'. There were no scientists involved in getting Ring's interview pulled. Pure invention on Ring's part. And who are these people that are disgusted, the clowns that work in his office? And note the bit about 'Witch-burning continues'. He denies being an astrologer, so is he saying he's a witch now?
-
Comment by Jamie, 12 Mar, 2015
Hi John, Ken posted this comment on The Farming Show FB page:
".....Are you tired of making up anti-ken Ring websites then Jamie?? I counted 4 that were traced back to your IP address. Get over your personal war."
Once again, he makes things up to suit his story. Anyone with half a tech-savvy brain knows that this is not possible. And even if he could trace it back to my IP address, my address is dynamic, so he'd get a different address each time.
Pseudologia fantastica much Ken?
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Mar, 2015
There is no doubt Jamie that Ring suffers from pseudologia fantastica, the disorder in which a person consistently lies.
If he had found four 'anti-ken Ring websites' run by you Jamie then why didn't he reveal his findings? Because they don't exist beyond his paranoid imagination, that's why! Unfortunately Ring's ignorance about the Internet is legendary, if you were to make a comment on a website such as 'Trademe' then Ring would claim that you made that website deliberately to attack him. I suspect that Ring probably thinks that 'IP address' means 'Insolent Pirate' address or perhaps 'Intolerant Prick' address. He has made the same childish claims about us, that we are running numerous anti-Ring websites, even accusing us of being in cahoots with Micrsosoft. And who needs the GCSB to spy on us, when we evidently already have Ken Ring and his group of clowns investigating us.
Of course Ring could quickly and easily bring most dissent to a halt by simply producing his evidence that his method really does work, like a real scientist would do. But astrologers don't work that way, they expect us to believe on faith. And so the war of minds, albeit terribly one sided, continues.
-
Comment by Ron, 12 Mar, 2015
Hi there John. Like you, I also asked myself "does Ken Ring actually have friends". Then you say Jamie of Farming Show fame thinks he is "a great guy". Hmmm. You see, I actually think Ken does not come across as a likeable person I told him this. Someone in an article said he "is not a pleasant person to deal with". Quite an understatement. I will go over a bit of old ground now, mainly for the benefit of recent and new visitors to SB to demonstrate a little of what Ken is capable of, and why it went downhill after a few personal emails, for me. Prior to March 2011 you will recall Ken made the statement that a large earthquake was likely in the area between Hanmer and Amberley in that Mar. 20 timeframe. When it never happened I checked his site. It had vanished. I emailed him and queried this. His reply was that no such thing was written and why would he write something like that. His tone was nasty after being pleasant in earlier correspondence. It shocked me that he could turn like that but also be so deceitful and despicable. He tried to make me look a total idiot who hallucinates that I read something only in my imagination. Is that not an insult? Scores of people today remember his statement. Harking back to the early days of SB and debate between you and Ken one sees a rather civil polite exchange during part of 2009.
When you progressively tried to prise some evidence and explanations, showed some scepticism, the tone from his end changed rapidly and he no longer used your name. Alas, this is not the mark of a likeable person. I read a quote from Ken in an earlier NZ forum where he tells us because he is not funded by the taxpayer he is not accountable to anyone. Arrogance. Any wonder he jumps up and down when some of us try to call him to account. He is quoted elsewhere going on about the politics of why it actually suits weather forecasters to get it wrong. Amazing. I assume he means the taxpayer funded entities here or overseas. That they do this to gain more funding?? One commenter on a forum summed up by saying far more questions are asked than answered when it comes to Ken. Funny thing is the lack of blogs/forums in Australia re. the Ken Ring debate. Plenty going on back in 2011 esp. by the skeptics society of Aust. Some good stuff still on the net but one thing becomes obvious, Ken and his combative style and words have changed little over the yrs. The lack of current forum comment seems odd because my impressions of Australians generally is, not only that they are very forthright and don't mince words but do not suffer fools or scams gladly.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Mar, 2015
Hi Ron. Ring's fawning followers naturally believe Ring is a 'great guy' because that is how scams work. No scammer ever gains the trust of his marks by revealing his real motives or his real personality. No one would hand over their money if he came across as the cheating, obnoxious bastard he actually is, hence Ring is all smiles when he approaches people with his spiel. Yet it's all a façade, Ring's claims are false and his manner is false. But people will never discover his duplicity if they blindly accept what he says and never actually check up on his claims. And all scammers go to great lengths to keep their followers in the dark, including vilifying any critics that might question his claims, doubt cannot be allowed to be entertained by his followers. Of course Ring has nothing to lose by revealing his snarling persona with the likes of us since he knows we're on to his scam. We are lost to his bank account but he thinks he might be able to at least discredit us or even intimidate us into silence with talk of legal action and thus keep the truth away from his clients.
As for predictions made by Ring mysteriously disappearing from his website when they turn out to be false, this is nothing new. It's something Ring is infamous for. He simply denies it was ever there in the first place. Your word against his. But the really mind-boggling thing is that he will also deny failed predictions when they are clearly still in his almanac or newsletter for all to see. And his followers believe him because they never think to actually check back to see what he really said. Trusting fools.
You mentioned Ring 'going on about the politics of why it actually suits weather forecasters to get it wrong. Amazing'. Ring is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who is absolutely convinced that most everyone, from this website and that guy over there, to the world's scientists and the world's governments are all out to destroy his silly little business, even if that means giving the public weather forecasts that are clearly wrong. Like scammers, conspiracy theorists need to have an answer when their clients ask why most people giggle at their claims: dark forces are out to get me because of what I know! Sure Ken, you need to start taking your meds again.
You're correct that there's apparently a dearth of forums in Oz critiquing Ring's claims, especially since he claims to have such a high profile there, but there is very little in NZ or Ireland as well. I think most people haven't even heard of Ken Ring, and of those that have, the majority rightly dismiss him as a superstitious idiot and will no more waste time exposing his nonsense than they would the old lady down the road reading tea leaves. Of course he has his followers, but they believe blindly, and don't bother debating his claims either. And when you do find the odd forum discussing Ring and his method, generally the only one defending Ring is Ring himself, and he quickly calls everyone Nazis and storms off in a tiff vowing never to return.
Remember that Ring told you that there are 'silent readers who are too scared to post' on 'Silly Beliefs'? Well Ring is one of those terrified silent readers, incapable of expressing a cogent argument and petrified of encountering the glare of reason. He trolls the Internet forums looking for people discussing his forecasting claims, ostensibly so that he can explain his method, but he must now have a blacklist of forums that he's labelled: 'Not safe for astrologers'.
-
Comment by Jamie, 13 Mar, 2015
Hi John, Ken's latest tweet on 11th March:
"Cyclone predicted for 12-13 and 22-23 March, NZ almanac 2015 (p133,139) and March newsletter. http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=788d54fc5b584b10501443ffb&id=af097fdd61&e=105acffc61 Allow 1-3 day leeway"
Now, I'm unsure exactly what he said in his Almanac (as I'd rather spend $50 on betting that Scotland wins the Cricket world cup than buy his silly book).
However, in his March newsletter (linked to in the tweet) he says:
"The cyclonic activity should intensify about the 23 Feb, then 2, 7-11, and 18-31 March, followed by 1-4 April. The third week of March may see two cyclones established - one in the Coral Sea off the North Coast 19-23 March, and a second at almost the same time around 25 March, further east just north of New Zealand. The system in the Coral Sea may linger around the Australian coast and threaten the State from around 15 March onwards and until the end of the month, with most intensity around 17-21 March"
So no doubt he will be trying to score a hit with this one due to the current situation with cyclone Pam.
BUT — Let's look at his newsletter dates and then allow for his "1-3 day leeway":
From 20th Feb (his first date mentioned, minus 3 days) through to 7th April (his last date mentioned, plus 3 days), there are 47 calendar days.
He has actually covered this entire 47 day period as "cyclonic activity intensify" days! — and it's cyclone season!
Now if he successfully predicted a tropical cyclone in the south pacific to within 1-3 days in the middle of July — now that would be something worth crowing about.
Nice one Ken. Do you think we are all idiots? Actually no, don't answer that.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Mar, 2015
Thanks Jamie, and you're quite right, Ring has shamelessly specified EVERY SINGLE DAY for an entire month and a half as at risk of cyclonic activity. No matter what day over a long 47 day period a cyclone occurs, Ring can pretend to claim he saw it coming.
Note also that his tweet said precisely: 'Cyclone predicted for 12-13 and 22-23 March', and yet his newsletter gave completely different dates: 'The cyclonic activity should intensify about... 7-11, and 18-31 March'. If, as Ring claims, he is working off astrological cycles spat out by his astrology program a year or two ago, why are they different? They should be identical. The cycles haven't changed have they Ken? Clearly his tweet is a blatant attempt to produce a new prediction that better reflects what is happening now, and that Ring saw predicted on the TV news. Years from now Ring will say he predicted Cyclone Pam and deviously refer us back to his hastily produced tweet.
Ring says that his point of difference is that he's a long range forecaster, so why don't his followers realise that issuing a new improved prediction a couple of days out is not long range! Ken would like us all to be idiots Jamie, but as long as his followers are that's apparently enough for now.
-
Comment by Jamie, 16 Mar, 2015
Hi John, check out Ken's latest comment here:
"...The 2015 almanac will therefore probably be the last in present form. For 2016 expect a much reduced work, available only through our website and not through shops. That is the economic reality of radio bullying...."
Sounds to me like a cover-up for poor book sales this year!
We live in hope.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 Mar, 2015
It's a cover-up alright Jamie. Ring suffering from so-called 'radio bullying' happened less than a week ago, there is no way that this could have shown up already in reduced sales of his silly almanac. And anyway, he claimed that 'People are appalled and disgusted' over his treatment and that these 'attacks' always send more business his way, so he should be expanding not retrenching. I suspect that more and more of his potential buyers are discovering that astrologers can't actually predict the weather, and consequently they're choosing not to spend their hard earned cash on what are essentially weather horoscopes, and that this is the true cause of Ring's economic downturn. Like blacksmiths, witches' potions, cassette tapes and hula hoops, Ring's almanac is on its way out, and like witches' potions, you'll soon have to go to the witch, I mean astrologer, to get one.
-
Comment by Jamie, 22 Mar, 2015
Hi John, on 14th March, as Cyclone Pam approached the North East of NZ, Ken tweeted:
"Gisborne likely to receive only moderate winds and less than 20mm rain next few days. But perigee event in a week's time may be much worse."
Well as we know, Gisborne received over 80mm of rain and very strong winds. See metservice screenshots here & here.
The perigee occurred on 19th March. The 19th had no rain and there is none forecast for the next few days.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Mar, 2015
Oh my Gawd! Are you saying Jamie that one of Ken Ring's astrology based forecasts has given Kiwi's a bum steer? I feared that this might one day happen, but hoped I was wrong. If we can't have complete confidence in such an ancient divination method promulgated by 21st technology, then our future looks bleak indeed. What other calamitous omen might next befall us? Might a witch's potion fail to deliver its promised outcome? Let's hope that this failed forecast was just a one-in-trillion glitch, and NZ's greatest soothsayer will soon be back on track, saving lives and livelihoods and giving us plebs the much needed confidence to face each day.
-
Comment by Doug, 23 Mar, 2015
Here's a prediction from Ken — we are now in the fourth week of March, so let us wait with baited breath. It could mean the end of South Africa's hopes in the ICC world cup and the Black Caps going to the final if Ken gets it right, assuming that heavy rain and wind in the Waikato and Coromandel also affect Auckland.
"The body of this article was written and posted .... on 12 December... In the fourth week of March the final cyclonic system, having passed through Fiji, brings heavy rainfalls and four days of windy weather to the Waikato and strong southeast winds to the eastern coast of Coromandel Peninsular (sic)." http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=506&type=home dated 12 Dec 2014
Cyclone Pam doesn't count — that was last week. But what is the bet that Ken claims it is within his limits of error?
-
Comment by Jamie, 23 Mar, 2015
Hi John, I have a question for Ken Ring. I'll ask it on here, since he refuses to answer me directly.
He claims that earthquakes are all about the moon and sun position and nothing to do with Plate Tectonics.
So, why is it that when a Total Solar eclipse occurred over Northern England / Norwegian Sea / Svalbard area a couple of days ago, there are no earthquakes there?
See attached USGS screenshot of the past 7 days, which shows absolutely nothing in that area. Just the usual areas copping it — Pacific Ring of Fire, etc. Business as usual.
You would think it would be the perfect time for a magical 'Moon Shot' straight through the eclipse area.
Especially when UK surfers are enjoying this: 'Britain battered by extreme high tides following solar eclipse'
-
Comment by Doug, 27 Mar, 2015
From Ken's latest witterings on the Yahoo site
"2015 was always going to start with a weak or neutral El Nino condition and bring in a weak cyclone season. On p139 of this year's almanac we listed the strongest cyclone in the Pacific to be about 12-13 March, likely to deliver rain to most of the North Island with not too much wind except on coasts, passing East Cape as a depression around 16th-19th. That this arrived on cue bodes well for the next prediction of possibly the last cyclone of the season, currently in progress as Nathan, which should work its slow way south, remnants of which may reach NZ about 7-10 April delivering rains first to the upper north."
I cannot check this as I refuse to waste money on a pile of rubbish when a 10c coin can do better. But he also wrote on 12 Dec 2014 that the cyclone would be in the fourth week of March, nothing about the 2nd and 3rd weeks. I guess this is Ken's method — if he covers the whole months of the cyclone season predicting cyclonic effects everywhere, but in different media so the contradictions are not so obvious, then he can claim always claim success, when in fact he just covered the field and then of course he must always pick the winner. But as a forecasting method, this is useless.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Mar, 2015
Hi Doug. Thanks for that. As you say, if you cover the field like Ring does, you're sure to get the odd forecast right. The reality is that if you look at Ring's 2015 almanac he has a section called 'Extreme Weather' that makes no mention of cyclones in March. He also has a section called 'Cyclones' that again makes no mention of cyclones in March. No, evidently readers have to go to page 139 to read of cyclones in March. Well, why wouldn't you, what idiot would expect to find a cyclone warning in sections called 'Extreme Weather' and 'Cyclones'? And yes, Ring does mention a cyclone in mid-March on page 139, but he now fails to tell us that different cyclones also receive a mention in early March and late March, cyclones that didn't happen. So all Ring can honestly say is that out of three cyclone mentions in March, he only got one right. One out of three right sounds like little more than a guess.
I see also Ring wrote in his 'Longrange weather chat' that 'Rain at or near the end of March... brings more relief to drought areas'. First, since he wrote this prediction 'at or near the end of March', and knowing from the MetService that rain was indeed falling, this is hardly a prediction. It's deceptive. Second, how can that rain bring 'more relief to drought areas', when Ring has insisted that there hasn't been a drought, anywhere? And even though he's just admitted that there has indeed been a drought, he then suggests that there hasn't really been a drought since NIWA, like him, didn't predict one: 'NIWA's outlook for December -February also had called for 'near average' rain and temperatures... meaning that even our national climate office, by not mentioning "drought" anywhere has also not expected one to occur anywhere during 2015'. All this means is that both NIWA and Ken Ring failed to predict a drought, it doesn't mean that one didn't happen. This is merely Ring saying, 'OK, so I can't accurately predict the weather, but neither can NIWA. So don't just pick on me. Fascists!'. But as you constantly remind us Ken, NIWA is NOT a 'long range forecaster'. NIWA does not claim the long range accuracy that you do.
So NIWA by not being a long range forecaster has missed a drought, Ring then hops on a hobby horse of his adding that 'the media has been almost silent on this, preferring instead to sensationalise the idea of global warming afflicting Marlborough and Canterbury'. Maybe some media did connect this drought with global warming, but none that I saw. In fact when this was suggested on one TV news item it was explained that a single weather event, whether if be a drought or cyclone, cannot be definitively connected to global warming.
And the real problem with Ring's predictions in his 'Longrange weather chat' for the year to come is that while some may read them, by the time they come around people have long forgotten about them. When the 2015/16 summer arrives, no one thinks to dig out that article that Ring wrote way back when and see if his predictions actually came to pass. Ring is like your typical psychic who can safely throw out predictions knowing that no one is likely to remember what his prediction was months later, or be bothered to find out. Ring relies on the apathy of his clients.
-
Comment by Daryl, 10 Apr, 2015
Hi John, I was perusing Ring's latest rambling's about predicting earthquakes and found this glaring error.
'When and where is the next big NZ earthquake?'
"....... I am doing the same now, 5 months beforehand. I am suggesting the date of 28-29 September 2015 as an important earthquake risk window.
As to where, one always looks to find a solar/lunar cycle at a location. It may therefore be of relevance that a close look at Central NZs (Marlborough to Wairarapa) seismic history reveals that above-7mag shakes have occurred on these dates; February 1893, August 1904, August 1917, July 1929, August 1942, May 1968, and May 1992. These have been separated by intervals of 11-13 and 24-26 years, which is the regularity of the solar cycle. And it is not easy to ignore that 1992 + 13 = 2015"
Hmmmm, last time I checked, 1992 + 13 was 2005......
It may just be me not reading this properly, but can you please explain to me how he links "As to where, one always looks to find a solar/lunar cycle at a location" with "It may therefore be of relevance that a close look at Central NZs (Marlborough to Wairarapa) seismic history reveals that above-7mag shakes have occurred on these dates;......"
Reading this article it is clear to me that his opinion is; on 28th or 29 September 2015, there will be an above 7 magnitude earthquake somewhere between Marlborough and Wairarapa. Is this a fair assessment of the prediction in his article?
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Apr, 2015
Hi Daryl,
A glaring error indeed. Well spotted. But I guess some people just aren't very good at simple arithmetic... oh wait a minute... Ring wants everyone to think that he's a mathematician! Which he isn't of course, just like he isn't a scientist or a psychologist which are other professions he pretends to belong to.
I'm assuming that Ring meant to add 23 years and not 13, but sloppy work aside, where does the 23 come from? He talks about 'astronomer M. Trellis' and 'the 11-year solar-activity cycle', but then further on he claims that 'Sunspots repeat in intensity and number in 11-12 and 22-23 year cycles', but then he changes his mind again and talks of 'intervals of 11-13 and 24-26 years, which is the regularity of the solar cycle'. And in the very next sentence after telling us about the 24-26 year cycle, he says that by adding 13 to 1992 (although his answer suggests he meant 23) we get 2015. But if he's talking about the 24-26 year cycle then why isn't he adding 25 years? Whether he meant 13 or 23, neither number fits into his solar cycles. The fact is that sunspot numbers do exhibit a 11 year cycle (on average) and there is also the Hale cycle that exhibits a 22 year cycle (on average) that looks at sunspot polarity. But Ring changing 11 and 22 year cycles to 11-12, 11-13, 22-23 and 24-26 is apparently just him creating a larger window in which to fit his predictions. But even when he cheats he still screws it up by saying that '1992 + 13 = 2015'.
I agree Daryl that Ring is most definitely predicting the high likelihood of a +7 mag quake around 28th Sep 2015 in the Marlborough to Wairarapa area. Of course elsewhere in his article he slyly backs away from this prediction and his confidence wanes. He admits that regarding his predictions, 'The region of applicability is wide and cannot be pinpointed exactly. If there is risk it may be over land or sea and may be far enough from metropolitan areas to not be taken seriously', and that his 'Predictions are intended as talking points and are not fixed in concrete. I am not certain of any of the above - it is only conjecture and opinion'. In other words, I'm only an ignorant old man making a guess. Even worse, this self-claimed expert refuses to take any responsibility for the accuracy of his predictions and puts it all on the shoulders of the uninformed reader who probably doesn't know a perigee from a periwig. He writes that 'if the reader feels that the above has any merit then this information may be of interest and coming perigee dates should be marked in diaries. Information is essentially neutral; it is the reader who decides to reject or embrace it and to what degree'. Ring idolises the likes of Newton and Galileo, can you imagine them refusing to stand behind their work, arguing that it was the job of the uninformed peasant to decide if their views had merit? I'm not saying that we uninformed peasants must accept the views of experts, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that 'Information is essentially neutral'. Experts by definition have better information on a specific topic than does the non-expert, and conflicting views between experts and non-experts are not equally likely to be correct. But of course the reality is that Ring is never happy to let the reader decide if what he says make sense or not. Tell him you disagree with his information and you will receive a tirade of abuse.
But what I don't understand, and Ring has refused to explain, is why the heavens are very picky as to who they attack. Regarding the devastating Christchurch quakes, he writes:
'By the first week of September 2010 the moon was sitting at its second closest distance from earth for all of 2010, on a par with propensity for large quakes at the start of the year, but with the added difference in September of the passing of a recent eclipse. It was bound to be an eventful mix. Should this have alerted the authorities?... '
OK, so there were quakes in Christchurch, but why wasn't there also quakes in Wellington and Dunedin and Auckland and hundreds of other places around NZ? The Moon is above the whole of the NZ, not just Christchurch. And not just NZ, but Australia and... well... the entire Earth. Why did the Moon perform a precision strike on just Christchurch and ignore the rest of the planet? Of course you could talk of unstable tectonic plate boundaries below Christchurch and not Auckland, but let's remember that Ring has told us that earthquakes are NOT connected to plate tectonics, it's all the fault of the Moon and the Sun and the planets. If Ring is right about the Moon being the cause of quakes, then to me it should be like summer and winter. When summer arrives the entire country experiences summer, not just Christchurch or the Wairarapa, so the entire country should experience quakes when the Moon is too close for comfort. Ring needs to explain why this doesn't happen.
And Ring needs to explain why he is still plagiarising the work of others. We've pulled him up on this before, several times, and he's promised to mend his delinquent ways, but he's still up to his old tricks it seems. Much of the detail in his article is stolen almost word for word — and often word for word — from the book 'Planetary Influences on Human Affairs', written by Bangalore Venkata Raman and edited by The Astrological Magazine. It was originally published in the late 1940s with the title 'Astrology and Modern Thought'. The following are just some of the passages that Ring filches from this old book and passes off as his own work:
'Aristotle recorded that it often happens there is an earthquake about the time of an eclipse.
...the asterism of the day belonging to prithvi (earth) or vayu (air) can contribute toward quakes...
The ancient classic Garga Samhita traces the quaking of the earth to "Ketus" or dark spots on the Sun...
In 1968, astronomer M.Trellis proved that...
seismologist Dr. Anderson at the California Institute of Technology saw tsunamis...
when the orbit of the Moon passed particularly closely to the epicentre of an earthquake source...
Sun, Mercury, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter can all be influential for earthquakes...
According to modern science, everything in nature is electrical...'
Of course there will be much in the astrology book that Ring doesn't agree with, even the title for example that talks of astrology's influence on human affairs. So the quotes that Ring has swiped have been edited where needed to hide embarrassing astrology references, and to say what he wanted them to say. For example, in the book this is written:
'Chile was rocked by a deadly earthquake in May 1960. And two days earlier the scientists had found that a huge spot was passing over the central meridian of the Sun and they thought that the spot had caused the disaster.'
Note that the book says that some unknown scientists in 1960 thought the spot caused the earthquake. But Ring deliberately changes that sentiment to:
'It is now accepted that the spot must have had something to do with the disaster'.
Ring wants readers to accept that it is now a 21st century scientific consensus that sunspots cause earthquakes, when this is pure fabrication on Ring's part.
Even a closing sentence found in Ring's shorter newsletter version of this article was stolen from the old astrology book. The original sentence said:
'If only modern scientists could keep their minds open, the accumulated wisdom of astrology could be of great assistance'.
By adding two words (underlined) I guess Ring thinks that means it's not theft. Yeah right!
'If only modern scientists could keep their minds open, the accumulated wisdom of astrology could prove to be of great assistance'.
And Ring has the arrogance to place the following at the end of his recent newsletter:
'No permission is granted to post this newsletter wholly or in part in the public domain, nor in a blog or other website. To do so without permission and for reasons of criticism breaches international copyright and becomes cyber bullying.'
He denies everyone the right to quote from his work, even with proper attribution, but he blindly steals the work of others and passes it off as his own thoughts and expertise. And if you're wondering why we can happily quote from Ring's work without his permission, there are several reasons. First, it's clearly not plagiarism since we clearly attribute the quotes to Ring. We aren't stealing his 'pearls of wisdom' and claiming that we thought of them. Second, there is a doctrine know as 'fair use' or fair dealing' that legally allows the use of a limited amount of copyrighted material for the purposes of, in our case, criticism and commentary. Also in his newsletters Ring writes: 'If you find the information here of use then... Please send this newsletter on and let's work towards a more interesting, rewarding, compassionate and cooperative world, open minded to new ideas and theories'. Ring implores us to pass his information on, all of it, and to make use of it to improve the world. Who are we to ignore his wishes?
Of course there is original nonsense in his article. Take this devious piece of omission where he criticises an expert for failing to predict a quake, but neglects to admit that he did likewise:
'...they could be as far off the mark as they were on 7 Sept 2010 when the Head Geologist of NZ, Dr Kelvin Berryman, told the public another destructive earthquake would not come to Christchurch for 500-600 years'
But of course Ring doesn't want readers to know that, after the Sep quake and before the deadly Feb quake, this is some of what he was saying at the same time:
'There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur...'
'...it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place.'
'I would still not consider that another massive earthquake is certain, in fact I think it's more likely not to be the case in Christchurch.'
'...Christchurch might well be one of the safest places.'
And here's another example of Ring refusing to check his facts: 'The largest ever earthquake recorded in Alabama, a 6-7mag, struck Pensacola on 8 May 1781'. The reality is that Pensacola is actually in Florida and not Alabama.
I also noticed that Ring has again promised to shut-up if shown to be wrong, but since he has reneged on past promises I can't see him honouring this one either:
'I will stand corrected if I have been awry in my calculations and conclusions. I also would like planetary configurations to at least be investigated and incorporated into modern seismology, even if only to roundly reject the theory if it can be proven false. But at least undertaking the study will ensure it has been looked at with neutral heart and the healthy rigour of scientific practice. To ignore it outright would not be responsible science'.
Ring deviously wants the readers to believe that science is ignoring the possible influence of the Moon, Sun etc on Earth, when in fact these things have and still are being studied intensively. Every time Ring makes some claim regarding gravity, magnetic fields, sunspot cycles, solar wind, tidal forces and p waves etc it's because of something that science has discovered, not astrologers. Astrology is not part of seismology because scientists have found no evidence that it has anything to do with reality. And Ken Ring steadfastly refuses to provide that evidence. He will lament to readers on the Internet that he is being ignored, but he will not open communication with scientists, apparently fearing them as vampires fear sunlight.
I had to giggle when Ring made the following plea:
'Further, in the interests of the well-being of citizens, if the above factors and correlations are to be denied then we need good reasons given for such denial'.
Ring truly thinks himself a saint, out to improve 'the well-being of citizens'. Of course Ring's astrology claims can be denied, and untold good reasons have been given over the years, but Ring is truly in denial, saintly denial. The fact that astrology is just primitive superstition is not a good reason according to Ring, nor is the embarrassing reality that there is no evidence supporting it, nor are the untold past and ongoing failures of his predictions a good reason to think that it's all ignorant nonsense. Just as Ring wants readers to believe that science is unfairly ignoring him, he wants them to believe that his critics refuse to say why we're challenging his claims. And typical of Ring, he finishes by claiming that truly evil people, like this website, are out to get him, by foul means:
'People must be allowed to make up their own minds about where to be on certain dates and times, and to work out matters of science for themselves. Nevertheless, I am sure those who wish to dictate what others should think, do and what not to believe, will have their own field day about this article and we will witness a new round of online witch-burning. In what appears to be some Gestapo-like throwback, NZ university sceptics resent my opinion even appearing on my own website, and constantly work hard at getting my website banned'.
Apparently if Ring offers his opinion he is, in his words, concerned with the 'interests of the well-being of citizens', but if anyone else offers their opinion, like me for example, then I'm trying to dictate what people think and do, I'm evidently of the opinion that people shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds. I'm 'some Gestapo-like throwback' according to Ring, and working hard to get his website banned. Of course these are all childish lies concocted by a desperate Ring to evoke sympathy for him and his business. What criteria might Ring think could be used to have his website banned? What's he got on there that we're not aware of?
There is no good reason to ban the websites of astrologers or witches or flat earthers or others that intelligent, rational people can see are clearly based on primitive nonsense. Unlike Ring, we value freedom of expression, and the only way we want interest in these silly beliefs to disappear is by the public actually thinking about them and sensibly concluding that they are complete nonsense. These silly beliefs and their websites will disappear through disinterest. Time is your enemy Ken.
-
Comment by Ken Ring, 12 Apr, 2015
Thanks for pointing out the mathematical error, I had not noticed the typo (should have been 23) and I have corrected it and added more information. In fact the 6.4mag in 2005 adds much more to the regularity of the solar cycle to the earthquake cycle for central NZ. As to claims of plagiarism, quoting odd sentences from other works to build a case is what all science writers do. Otherwise the claim is made that one has no peers and is all alone in one's theories. I have also acknowledged my sources, but.it is easy to find refs these days using google and I encourage that because it introduces the reader to other research fields, which shows that much work is always being done with alternative theories. This is what science stands for - endless debate and discussion of all ideas, not the closing of the mind to allow through just the streams of narrow mainstream scientific thought as taught in NZ universities.
It is indeed a silly belief to narrow the mind (definition of "silly"). So rather than constantly persecuting me for daring to be different, how about embracing adult discussion in a manner different from a gang of beat-up thugs? Readers CHOOSE to read my website, it is not anywhere mainstream so it is not in people's faces all the time like GNS reports are on TV, print and radio. To go into my website, which is intended only for people who ask me for this type of information, and take offence, is like walking along the street and punching someone who is minding their own business, and then when the person retaliates, blaming him for being obtuse. Your silly belief is that people should think only as you do. Well, wake up. Many don't and that is no hanging offence.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 13 Apr, 2015
Hi Ken. You say that 'As to claims of plagiarism, quoting odd sentences from other works to build a case is what all science writers do'. One, you are not a science writer. As you freely acknowledge, you are writing about 'alternative' views that are not part of 'mainstream scientific thought as taught in NZ universities', views which are more correctly called pseudoscience. You cannot filch your core argument from an old book on astrology written by an astrologer and call yourself a science writer anymore than a witch writing about magic can.
Two, you are not 'quoting odd sentences from other works' since there was no indication that the words in your article were quoted from the work of others. You integrated your stolen 'quotes' in such a way that readers have no idea which are your thoughts and which aren't. My dictionary defines quoting as, 'To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source'. Not only did you make no attempt to identify the source of your quotes, you refused to even indicate that they were quotes by seamlessly weaving the stolen quotes into your own text. Not a single pilfered quote had quotation marks around it with a reference to the source. You've now added a footnote that mentions the astrology book as a source, but the reader still has no idea whatsoever what text in your article comes from that book. That is plagiarism Ken, plain and simple, deviously passing off the work of others as your own. We often quote scientists, historians and even astrologers, but we clearly identify the quotes and their source. We do not take credit for their insight and original work, and neither should you Ken.
You say that 'It is indeed a silly belief to narrow the mind (definition of "silly")'. Where do you get your definitions from Ken? Medieval astrology books? I suspect that what you actually mean is that one shouldn't be intolerant and unreceptive to new ideas. But that's not what silly means. My American Heritage® Dictionary defines silly as 'Having or exhibiting a lack of good judgment or common sense; foolish'. Webster's New World College Dictionary defines silly as 'having or showing little sense, judgment, or sobriety; foolish, stupid, absurd, ludicrous, irrational, etc'. And the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines silly as 'having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment: foolish or stupid'. That's what silly means Ken, and it's what we mean by talking about 'silly beliefs', beliefs that are foolish and irrational and held due to a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment.
You once again claim that your critics are 'persecuting me for daring to be different'. How many times do we have to say it, we are not persecuting you. Your unhealthy fixation with fascism and the Nazis apparently leads you to view any and all questions as persecution. We don't care that you're different, don't you get it that we all have differing views? Remember that my daring to be an atheist makes me different. We're challenging your claims because we think they're wrong, not because they're different. When you challenge climate change proponents Ken, do you see yourself as persecuting them? Are your actions persecution or merely healthy debate? You say that science is about 'debate and discussion of all ideas', but as soon as we try to debate and discuss all these ideas on our website you accuse us of persecution. We're not saying that people must think only as we do, we're saying that this is what we think and why we think it. This is where the debate and discussion bit comes into play, and astrologers, psychics, witches and god believers etc who have different views get the chance to explain why our views might be flawed. And yet, like you Ken, rather than enter into civil discussion, most resort to insults and then flee.
You ask of us, 'how about embracing adult discussion in a manner different from a gang of beat-up thugs?' But are you even capable of a civil adult discussion Ken? Even in your invitation you once again can't help but resort to childish insults. In your article you referred to us as 'some Gestapo-like throwback' and you've previously said that I'm a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi... that hates Catholics, the Irish, Muslims, Jews...', and on and on you went. And you have the gall to suggest that it is me that is incapable of embracing adult discussion in a civil manner!
But you've made the offer, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You have replied to our comments, but a real adult discussion involves a debate, of questions being asked and responded to. We asked questions but as usual in your reply you ignored them, and instead you merely tried to defend your plagiarism and plead with us to leave you alone. Adult discussion about your methods Ken does not work as well as it could if you refuse to take part.
If you're genuine and you truly want to have an adult discussion, then start by explaining where you got 23 from in your talk of solar cycles. As I said, scientists talk of 11 and 22 year cycles, and yet you've changed them to 11-12, 11-13, 22-23 and 24-26 cycles. What justifies this disagreement with the scientists? Even if the cycle did range from 22 to 26 years, why do you settle on 23 years? Why don't you say that 1992 + 22 or + 26 = 2014 through to 2018. How can you be so precise, plucking 23 years from this range and predicting a +7 mag quake around 28th Sep 2015 in the Marlborough to Wairarapa area? And another question we asked, quite politely I thought, was why the Moon will cause with surgical precision a major quake in that area while the same quake causing powers pass over the rest of NZ and the world without causing a quake, not even a little one? And perhaps you could also detail what evidence you have that we are working at getting your website banned. And so the adult discussion begins... or does it Ken?
-
Comment by Ken Ring, 16 Apr, 2015
You call for science discussion. But how can that be when you have your own silly beliefs, and cannot accept that
1. Science did begin with astrology as it was several centuries ago. Without astrologers Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Franklin, Laplace, Flamsteed (who constructed the Greenwich observatory) etc, and those like Newton who studied under astrologers (in Newtons case Descartes), there would be no present day science. Without the mathematics developed by Persian and Indian astrologers there would be no present-day computer tecnology.
2. I am not astrologer in the current meaning of the word. I have never done a horoscope in my life and I do not put astrologer on any census form, passport, tax return, electoral roll or book I have written. Other astrologers do not even call me one.
3. My correct predictions for the Christchurch earthquakes were not because I "got lucky" as luck has no part of science, only the casino. My tweets of 7 September 2010 and 13 February 2011 warned 5-6 months and then a week in advance of the next Christchurch earthquakes to come, so that people might ready themselves for them. (My error is usually 15-20%, same as other inexact sciences). Rather, I used a science far more advanced that local geologists can seem to be able to get their heads and jobs around.
https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/23856729753
https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/36763786807345152
4. What I write on my website is intended only for those who wish for that information, not for the critics here to dissect word for word, comma for comma.
5. The linking of solar and tidal (lunar) factors to earthquakes is now well studied and documented, but just not in NZ, as a little googling will discover, e.g. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.0818.pdf
So once you drop your fascist idea that alternative viewpoints must be "silly" simply because you do not agree with them, the science can begin. But by this whole website you demonstrate that you are incapable of that kind of discussion.
In a science world ALL beliefs, ideas, theories, viewpoints, arguments, and sides of a debate are possible and have equal place. No viewpoint lords it over the rest. No one has any moral high ground and has been elected by any majority to declare what thoughts are more worthy than others. Anyone who puts him/herself in that position immediately departs the science stage and joins the population of the ignorant and intolerant, which is a world of knowledge darkness that science seeks to address.
Such pig-headed attitude is certainly not adult, but more in keeping with the behaviour of a 4-year old who may typically throw a tantrum when he is resistant to learning new ways of looking at things. Rather than listen thoughtfully, he endlessly describes his own take on things with great verbosity, because he is constantly fearful of what he doesn't fully understand.
So a science discussion on a "silly beliefs" website is itself an oxymoron.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Apr, 2015
So as I suspected Ken, it was all a bluff on your part, an offer you had no intention of honouring. You ask for an adult debate, we agree and you back out. Contrary to what you write, it was not us that called for a 'science discussion', although of course we would welcome one. It was you that challenged us with these words: 'how about embracing adult discussion in a manner different from a gang of beat-up thugs?'. We mentioned that in the past you've always peppered your replies with insults and falsehoods and even though we ask reasonable questions involving the science, in your replies you always ignore them. However we said we'd give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your offer to enter into an adult 'debate and discussion of all ideas'. To get the ball rolling we posed some questions in our closing paragraph, all concerning claims that you have recently made. We were not at all confident that you would stand by your offer, and your reply has shown we were right not to be. Apparently it was all a ploy on your part, you expected us to shun a serious discussion and consequently you'd then be able to say that we had arrogantly rebuffed your genuine attempts to explain your case.
It is you Ken that has now dismissed your own offer of debate, claiming that we 'are incapable of that kind of discussion'. You ignored every one of our questions, you repeat claims that you know, and we know, are utterly false, and you couldn't resist the insults, calling us fascist, ignorant, intolerant, pig-headed and that we're acting like a 4-year old throwing a tantrum. Seriously Ken, this is not how an adult science discussion goes.
So since a discussion is off the table, let's look at your numbered points and expose your many errors, for the umpteenth time. This is for the readers' benefit Ken, as we know you won't understand or accept the truth. You didn't get them the first or second time we explained them, so I doubt this time will be any different.
1. We have already explained that Galileo, Copernicus etc were not astrologers and most importantly are not famous for any belief or work they did regarding astrology. They are renown for their astronomy work, not for the things they got wrong. Also you've been told by many people, including me, and shown the evidence, that Newton was not an astrologer and just last month I told you that Newton did not study under the astrologer Descartes. I explained that Descartes died when Newton was only eight years old, and in France not England, so he clearly never taught Newton any astrology. Furthermore I told you that philosopher A. C. Grayling wrote that Descartes 'had no intention of being involved with what he called "the false sciences" of alchemy, magic and astrology, of which he was frankly contemptuous'. So not only did Descartes not teach Newton, he wasn't even an astrologer. It's bad enough that you are ignorant of these facts, but it is despicable that when you are made aware of your errors, you still keep telling people what you now know are complete lies. And it's frankly quite bewildering that you would repeat the Copernicus, Newton, Descartes lies back to me after I've already exposed them. Did you really think I'd forget that Newton wasn't an astrologer? And as for Pierre-Simon Laplace, why have you suddenly added him to your list of astrologers? He was an astronomer Ken, can you not tell the difference? You can't just take famous names from history and tack on 'astrologer'. That's what's called falsifying evidence Ken.
Saying that science began with astrology is no different to saying that chemistry began with alchemy, that medicine began with witchcraft and Parisian fashion began with a smelly animal skin in a dark cave. This would all be true in a broad sense, but science, chemistry, medicine and fashion have all advanced enormously and have all rejected the superstitious, primitive and clearly false beliefs that comprised the likes of astrology, alchemy and witchcraft. Yes we can thank some astrologers for studying the sky thousands of years ago, just as we can thank some caveman for learning how to control fire, but we no longer consult astrologers before we make an investment or seek out a caveman to heat our houses. We've moved on Ken, it's high time you did too.
2. I repeat Ken, you are an astrologer because you, by your own admission, use astrological natal charts to cast horoscopes, or 'weather forecasts' as you call them. As I've already explained to you, a horoscope is simply 'An astrological forecast... based on a diagram of the aspect of the planets and stars at a given moment'. This is exactly what you do when you use your astrology programs to make forecasts. I don't care what you put on your passport or tax return. You've publicly and falsely called yourself a mathematician, a scientist and psychologist but I suspect none of those job descriptions appear on those forms either, do they? I'm a blogger but this description doesn't appear on my passport. You can be an astrologer without having to reveal it on your census form Ken. You write articles defending astrology and implore the rest of us to embrace its accumulated wisdom, so why are you so embarrassed to be called one? Time to come out of the closet Ken.
3. We've already exposed your lies regarding the Christchurch earthquakes Ken. And what's this implication that we said you 'got lucky'? We've never said that you got lucky, we've said that you've never clearly and unambiguously predicted a single earthquake. Not one. There were two major Christchurch earthquakes, and 11,000 plus aftershocks. The 7.1 mag quake was on Sep 4, 2010 and your tweet was three days after the quake so you can't claim to have predicted the first of the Christchurch earthquakes. You have to tweet before the quake Ken! Your two tweets do appear to predict a quake in Feb 2011, and the deadly second Christchurch quake did strike on Feb 22. However your first tweet is vague and doesn't specify Christchurch, so you could have claimed success no matter where in NZ a quake happened to occur. Your second tweet is more concise, although even allowing for your 3 day window of inaccuracy you still miss the quake by a day, so even if people had taken your warning seriously, which they didn't, they would have returned to work by the time the quake struck. You saved no one! Taken in isolation and if this tweet were the only prediction you made regarding the earthquake threat in Christchurch at this time, then I would agree that it seems quite prescient. However this prediction is just one of many that you made, for example:
'There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur...'
'...it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place.'
'I would still not consider that another massive earthquake is certain, in fact I think it's more likely not to be the case in Christchurch.'
'...Christchurch might well be one of the safest places.'
These are just a few of the 11 predictions (see here for the full list) that you made that all assured the people of Christchurch that there WASN'T going to be a quake any time soon. At least eleven times you predict that there will not be a repeat of the Sep quake and only once, in your Feb tweet that almost no one saw, do you make the opposite prediction, that there will be a quake. Why should that single prediction have cancelled out the 11 other predictions Ken, and if it should have, why didn't you publicly say that all your previous predictions were wrong, and that contrary to what you had said widely in the media, there was a quake coming and your earlier assurances should all be ignored? You made 11 predictions that there would be no quake and one prediction that there would, can't you see that no matter what happened you can point to a correct prediction as long as you hide the others? And of course this is exactly what you've done. You harp on about a single detailed tweet but you never mention those 11 predictions that completely contradict that tweet. Also there were 11,000 plus quakes in Canterbury, and many others worldwide since 2011, none of which you predicted, and so you must repeatedly refer people to that one isolated tweet to try and support your prediction method. You failed to predict the devastating mag 9 quake and tsunami that struck Japan 11 Mar, 2011, and you terrified a lot of people by predicting that '...the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk... All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books'. Of course, embarrassing for you Ken, it never happened. If your prediction method worked Ken then you should have a mountain of accurate tweets warning of the earthquakes that have happened in the last 5 years or so. But you haven't, so clearly that Christchurch tweet was a complete fluke, one you were forced to issue because contrary to your many previous claims, the aftershocks kept happening and you were looking like a fool by insisting that they were all finished with. You changed sides to save face.
And you again repeat the nonsense that 'luck has no part of science, only the casino'. As I've said, luck does play a part in science, as it does in all of life's endeavours, and every experiment must be designed to eliminate flukes and coincidences. And just as luck plays a part in science, science plays a part in casinos. Do you think Ken that it's just luck that casinos make millions of dollars and win far more often than they lose? And I know you won't answer, but I must ask where it's written that 'inexact sciences' have a '15-20%' error rate. Your expected refusal to reply will force me to assume that you just made it up. And if astrology is indeed an advanced science as you claim, why does it still have a '15-20%' error rate like the inferior 'inexact sciences'? But again, you using astrology and claiming to be using an advanced science is as ridiculous as a witch using magic and claiming to be doing science. But then you believe even dogs are doing science, so your view of what science is is pretty simplistic.
4. In your previous reply you wished that we would begin 'embracing adult discussion', and yet in Point 4 you again beg us to leave you alone! It takes two people to have a discussion Ken, and we can't honestly discuss your method and the claims you make, with you or anyone else, if we don't read what you write. And you don't just keep your views to your website as you suggest, you write on other forums, you publish books and you speak on radio and TV. If you don't want us and others to critique your astrological claims, then you need to make more of an effort to hide them. But even hiding your articles on your website Ken will not stop us exposing your fantasy, anymore than we will ignore abusive priests as long as they hide in their churches. You are selling a product to the public, and we all have a right and duty to query and highlight claims we find dubious. Your refusal to answer queries and your insistence that we back off only makes us more suspicious. Psychic mediums do the same thing, refuse to talk when a skeptic is present.
5. You claim that 'The linking of solar and tidal (lunar) factors to earthquakes is now well studied and documented', and as proof you refer to a single paper that makes a link to the Sun and tectonic causes. But it gives no support whatsoever to your main earthquake cause, the Moon and its gravity, and it talks of plate tectonics as contributing to quakes, a cause which you vehemently disagree with. So that paper gives only incidental support to your prediction method. Furthermore, a single tentative paper does not indicate or even suggest a proven link that is 'now well studied and documented'. If such an accepted link existed it would be mentioned in the textbooks and not just in a single obscure paper, and the geologists and seismologists that you belittle would have heard of it. Also, we have never said that solar and lunar factors don't perhaps have some influence on earthquakes, what we say is that your astrological method is woefully ignorant of determining what those effects are and of making accurate predictions.
Your alternative viewpoints Ken, and the others we challenge, are not silly because we disagree with them, they're silly because, as I've already explained, they exhibit a lack of good judgment, they show a lack of thought and understanding, they are foolish. And with your viewpoints Ken we could go further, they are not merely propagated due to a lack of understanding, but a desire for profit.
And speaking of lack of understanding, you claim that:
'In a science world ALL beliefs, ideas, theories, viewpoints, arguments, and sides of a debate are possible and have equal place. No viewpoint lords it over the rest. No one has any moral high ground and has been elected by any majority to declare what thoughts are more worthy than others... '
What absolute nonsense. Do you even think about what you write Ken? In modern science do you really think that Creationism is equal to the big bang theory, that Adam and Eve is equal to evolution, that alchemy is equal to chemistry, that magic is equal to medicine, that reproductive biology is equal to the stork theory etc? The reality is that in science there is indeed many a theory that 'lords it over the rest'. No serious biologist believes in spontaneous generation anymore and no serious astronomer defends a geocentric solar system. They don't argue that 'ALL beliefs, ideas, theories, viewpoints' must be kept in play and treated as equal.
You say that in science 'No one has any moral high ground...'. Well of course not, because science isn't about morals at all, you're confusing it with ethics, a branch of philosophy. Science is decided on the evidence, it's not about fair play and ensuring 'ALL beliefs... are possible and have equal place'. Science would never advance if every theory was considered equal, nor would it advance if every belief was considered possible, as you insist. If real scientists had to accept that the beliefs of Creationist scientists 'are possible and have equal place' then they might as well give up all scientific research. If it's equally possible that God created the universe 10,000 years ago, or that the Devil caused the Christchurch earthquakes, then we would need to accept that we will never know what the real answer might be. If the Pope can walk into the Large Hadron Collider and demand that his beliefs and arguments about the origin of the universe be treated as equal to those of the physicists, then science collapses.
This is not to say that scientists are intolerant of new and alternative ideas. When a new mystery is investigated, initially many ideas and arguments will be treated as plausible and equally possible since there is insufficient evidence and reason to pick one over another. But as evidence mounts and arguments improve some initial ideas will be dismissed and others will be elevated to real theories. Science isn't some loving parent unwilling to pick between her children, science will happily pick its favourite well-supported theory and kick mistaken theories out into the cold without any guilt. Your argument Ken that science should treat the likes of astrology, alchemy, witchcraft and creationism as equal ideas and viewpoints on how the world works is just silly. You clearly don't understand how science works. It's not about playing nice with the kids that aren't too bright, it's about finding the truth. 3,000 years ago, the beliefs and ideas of astrology, astronomy and religion might well have all seemed possible and equally likely, but much has changed since you were a boy Ken. Scientific research with its powerful evidence and cogent arguments has shown that astrology and religion no more explain the universe than does the Santa theory explain Xmas gift giving. Your dream of standing up at an astronomy conference and saying 'Hi, my name's Ken... and I'm an astrologer', and expecting a heartfelt welcome is about ten centuries too late. The era when the ideas and arguments of astrologers and witches and priests were taken seriously is long gone Ken. Your fantasy that your ancient astrological beliefs are possibly true and deserve equal place with science is just that, a fantasy.
Ken, you say that I'm 'resistant to learning new ways of looking at things' and 'constantly fearful of what he doesn't fully understand'. Must I once again reveal that I'm an atheist Ken, and explain that I wouldn't have adopted this new alternative way of looking at the world if I were resistant to radical change? Furthermore, I certainly don't fully understand the world or the scientific theories that attempt to explain it. And yet I'm not at all fearful of the world or science, in fact I embrace them both with no trepidation. I am not fearful of astrology or witchcraft or the silly claim that god watches me in the shower. Rather than being resistant and fearful, I love learning more about things that I don't understand, and it's this inquisitiveness that allows me to determine that when astrologers and psychics and priests make their claims, they are talking nonsense. It is not my ignorance that you fear Ken but my knowledge.
You finish by strangely asserting that 'a science discussion on a "silly beliefs" website is itself an oxymoron'. Really? In addition to critical thinking, what better tool could there be than science to examine the weird claims made by the likes of astrologers, psychic mediums, homeopaths, alien abductees, religious evangelists and chemtrail proponents? Are you suggesting that only silly beliefs should be used to examine other silly beliefs? Can only a witch consider the claims made by an astrologer? That you're surprised to see science being used to investigate silly beliefs, or that you're even convinced that science can't be used, would suggest that it is you Ken that is fearful of what science might find. Why else would you argue that science has no place on a website that examines silly beliefs?
So, thanks for the initial offer to discuss your work Ken, it's just a shame that you backed out and didn't have the confidence to actually follow through. Was it on legal advice, or are you finally getting advice from a PR person?
-
Comment by Ken Ring, 17 Apr, 2015
This just shows readers what I am up against.
"I repeat Ken, you are an astrologer"
No, for the umpteenth time, I should know what I am. I am very respectful of astrologers, and so as not to insult them I would not claim to come anywhere near them in prowess.
The real astrologers were Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Flamsteed who built the Greenwich Observatory, etc.
"2. ..your tweet was three days after the quake so you can't claim to have predicted the first of the Christchurch earthquakes. You have to tweet before the quake Ken!
your first tweet is vague and doesn't specify Christchurch, so you could have claimed success no matter where in NZ a quake happened to occur."
People like you should honestly read something carefully before putting foot in mouth. The tweet date was 7 September, about a possibly destructive quake in Christchurch, named as such, in 5-6 months time, not after it happened. How more can I say it was Christchurch other than use the name itself in the body of the tweet. Read it again and stop wasting my and your readers time. https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/23856729753 Unless you are blind to reading "Christchurch" this really is silly.
As to the rest of your usual raving, it is ground already covered, but there seems to be a compulsive disorder going on that requires you to pour forth every known frustration concerning people and ideas you disagree with. You really do need to get out of your own way and move on. If you think you can expose what you call astrologers, psychics, religions, superstitions and silly beliefs, you really do have your work cut out. The majority of the world, including the eastern and Asian cultures, the indigenous, the semitic races and those on the African continent, find at least some rituals of value for the cohesion of their communities. That is not to say there are barbaric practices harmful and unnecessary and that a move forwards on them would be desirable. But to apply a broad brush and claim that anything you find disagreeable should be labelled sillyis arrogant and dangerous, because it calls in essence for ethnic cleansing. That makes you as bad as any of the barbaric customs you deplore. All anyone can say is, this or that is not for me. That goes for ideas too. You should leave it at that. Otherwise the scorners always invite more scorn back upon themselves.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Apr, 2015
Oh dear, you sell yourself short Ken, your astrological prowess can certainly be compared to every astrologer now and throughout history that has been brave enough to accept the title. Your success with genuine, accurate predictions is without doubt as good as theirs. That is, pathetic and non-existent. They failed miserably to divine future events from reading the heavens, as do you. Stand proud Ken, your skill and wizardry in promoting primitive, superstitious nonsense is equal to theirs. Of course historically they didn't know any better, whereas you should, but I'm sure modern astrologers would view your willingness to dismiss modern knowledge in your support of ancient astrology as commendable.
But it's actually a little strange that you now say you are 'very respectful of astrologers' and that you don't want 'to insult them', since you've ridiculed astrologers many times, saying that 'Modern astrology has been denigrated to a party and coffee table game'. I assume you're talking about live astrologers since you've said that modern astrologers don't call you an astrologer (in fact some do), and you can hardly insult dead ones. And if your great respect towards astrologers prevents you from adopting the title, then why are you perfectly willing to identify yourself as a scientist, a mathematician and a psychologist, even though you are none of these? Why aren't you respectful towards these professions Ken?
And like a parrot you again repeat, as if saying it a certain number of times will make it true, that 'The real astrologers were Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Flamsteed who built the Greenwich Observatory, etc'. Why do you never provide evidence of this assertion of yours, links to reputable encyclopedias or books that clearly describe these men as 'Galileo the astrologer' and 'Copernicus the astrologer' etc.? We've agreed that Kepler dabbled in astrology, but he is famous solely for his work in astronomy. Likewise Galileo and Copernicus had studied some astrology, as you've said it was often a compulsory subject of study, but again, neither went on to practice astrology and neither are famous for any work in astrology. You've also claimed repeatedly that Newton, Descartes, Laplace and Archimedes were real astrologers, when again none of these men studied, supported or practiced astrology. You Ken seem to think that if someone knew what astrology was then that made them a 'real astrologer'. By that definition then I'm a real astrologer, and so are you. By your criteria we could also say, and more accurately than your astrologer claim, that the the real Christians were Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Flamsteed, Newton, Descartes etc., because they were all Christians, but again, not one of them is famous because they believed in God. Their incidental belief in god or astrology is completely irrelevant to their work in science for which they are famous. You blindly insisting that we always talk of Copernicus the astrologer is like me always referring to you as Ken Ring the clown. Because let's remember Ken that you did work as a clown whereas Copernicus never worked as an astrologer. The description 'Ken Ring the clown' is far more accurate than Copernicus the astrologer. You could indeed put 'clown' on your passport and census form Ken, whereas Copernicus and Newton could have never put 'astrologer' on their travel documents. So Ken, if you're going to continue to misleadingly talk of Copernicus and Newton the astrologers, we will, to maintain accuracy, perhaps have to start talking of Ken Ring the clown. If, summing up his life, Copernicus can be viewed and labelled as an astrologer, then you can certainly be viewed and labelled as a clown.
You challenge my claim that 'your first tweet is vague and doesn't specify Christchurch, so you could have claimed success no matter where in NZ a quake happened to occur'. You say that 'The tweet date was 7 September, about a possibly destructive quake in Christchurch, named as such, in 5-6 months time, not after it happened'. You dispute my interpretation but you again neglect to publish the tweet to prove your argument, so I'll publish it here for readers to make up their own minds:
'The Christchurch earthquake was predictable. And there's another coming in 6 months. See www.predictweather.com to find out when
3:09 PM - 7 Sep 2010'
You said that 'The Christchurch earthquake was predictable'. This is an empty statement about the quake that had already happened. You then say, 'And there's another coming in 6 months'. You do not clearly and specifically say that there's another Christchurch quake coming in 6 months. And as we said, you then go on to make 11 separate assurances that Christchurch is unlikely to be the site of a second major quake. Clearly you saw a different location for the coming quake, not Christchurch. Your only mention of Christchurch referred to a quake that had already happened, only after the second quake occurred in Christchurch could you claim that you were thinking of Christchurch all along. But if a quake had happened in Dunedin or Nelson you could also have easily said that that was the quake that you foresaw. Your vague wording gave you all of NZ to work with, and no matter where a quake happened, you could easily reply, 'Ahh yes, that's the location I was thinking of!' Nor did you say that it's going to be 'in 5-6 months time' as you now claim. You said 6 months. Can you not even accurately quote your own tweets? This is why we can't trust your vague predictions, you keep changing them every time you mention them and hope people won't check. And in trying to defend your tweet Ken, you neglected to explain why you issued those 11 predictions that all was well and then suddenly changed your mind. You say that your astrological predictions don't change, that they can be produced 200 years before the event. So why did this one change Ken? Why?
And yes much of I what I wrote is ground that has already been covered, but you keep repeating falsehoods such as that Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Descartes were astrologers, that you predicted the Christchurch earthquakes, that astrology is an advanced science and that we are fearful of alternative ideas. Each time you write this nonsense we are forced to explain to readers that they are all lies to promote your primitive worldview. We gave you some questions concerning your method that would have covered new ground, but you insist on always going back to your tired old script: In the beginning there was light, and then there was astrology... and please leave me alone. Please!
And yes Ken, we truly do believe we can help expose astrologers, psychics, religions, superstitions and silly beliefs. Just look at how the public's view of you has changed over recent years. Of course we don't believe we're going to stamp out these silly beliefs, but if we can change just a few minds and prevent just a handful of people from being ripped off, then we'll be happy. If just one person stops giving money to psychics or astrology weather forecasters or stops worrying about invisible gods or throws out their homeopathy potions, then we will consider our efforts as being worthwhile. And all these things have come to pass, so we are encouraged to continue exposing silly beliefs.
You on the other hand, when it comes to the beliefs of others, reckon we should mind our own business, and you had this to say, 'All anyone can say is, this or that is not for me. That goes for ideas too. You should leave it at that'. While you apparently accept that some harmful practices should be challenged, you don't say what they might be or who would decide what constitutes a harmful practice. Although clearly you don't think anything we speak out against is a harmful practice. So if I see a priest grooming an altar boy, or a psychic scamming an elderly relative, or a young Muslim girl being dragged off for female circumcision, or a neighbour hiding inside from chemtrails, or a friend buying homeopathic potions for malaria protection, I should just say, that's not for me, and leave it at that. Well Ken, you might be perfectly happy and content turning a blind eye to friends and family and even strangers being harmed, ripped off and lead astray, but I'm not. I feel that I have a duty to my fellow humans to sound a warning where I can, to offer an alternative viewpoint for them to consider. Contrary to your ongoing offensive accusations, I am not calling for ethnic cleansing, nor do we skeptics view what we do as a barbaric custom. Critical thinking, healthy debate and exposing others to alternative views they might not have been aware of is something that should be encouraged, not condemned and silenced as you demand.
You continually assert Ken that because of our skeptical views we will only attract scorn and contempt, and yet the only ones that apparently despise us, that write comments of disdain, are those pushing the scams and silly beliefs we expose. Why don't you stop the insults and pleading Ken and simply concentrate on showing that your method works, if not to us, then at least to the scientific world. Stop targeting the ignorant man on the street and front up to academia with your data and convince them. Do that and we'll switch to being one of your biggest supporters. Continue with your myths, irrational confrontation and refusal to answer queries and our suspicion of your astrological forecasting method will also continue.
-
Comment by Daryl, 17 Apr, 2015
Hi John, a few questions for Ken.
Ken, since you're busy lashing people with insults and dodging straight forward questions, I have a few too. Years ago my parents got gifted one of your almanacs. I never looked at it except for a quick flick through it. After your media appearances around the CHCH earthquakes, I remembered the book my parents were given and have been checking your free weather outlooks over the last few years.
Your accuracy rate in my opinion is extremely poor, and the things you talk about that are close to the mark appear to be things most people should know anyway. One classic example is your predictions for North island ski fields. I know that opening dates for Turoa and Whakapapa have always been late July. I also know that snow will almost always fall before that but generally be washed away unless a series of cold fronts tops up the base. Turoa can now open in early July because of snow making machines but it is only one 100 meter patch of learner slope. Every North island snow bunny knows full well that the season proper is mid August to mid October, almost EVERY YEAR.
So when you say:
'The Central Plateau gets a dose of snow at the end of April that will quickly disappear. The North Island may be too warm and too dry for useful snow until the end of July, then little or none until mid August. In the North Island temperatures should stay mild until the end of July. August to October are cooler months, but may be too late for the North Island ski industry.'
I say, this is a nonsense 'prediction' based on what happens pretty much every year.
What you appear to be 'predicting' is that in there will be no ski-able snow until the end of July? Then we will get some more two weeks later? but this is too late for the ski industry? Can you please elaborate on what you mean by too
late? Will they not be able to open? Will it be too late for them to make a profit?
There is almost NEVER any useful snow until the end of July, August to October ARE cooler months, where is the 'prediction' here? what does this generalised nonsense actually tell people?
Also, could you please answer these:
1. If you are not an astrologer, why then on your website do you talk about '...Jupiter crossing between the sun and Sagittarius'?
A quick google of this statement brings up search results riddled with the term 'astrology'.
2. In one of your articles you state: 'and it is rare for a cyclone system to cross the equator'. Can you please tell me the names and years of cyclones that have crossed the equator.
-
Comment by Ken Ring, 18 Apr, 2015
576.
1. If you are not an astrologer, why then on your website do you talk about '...Jupiter crossing between the sun and Sagittarius'? A quick google of this statement brings up search results riddled with the term 'astrology'.
A planet crossing a constellation is simply a fact of astronomy. Call it what you like, your choice. I am not an astrologer just because you say so. I can wield a hammer without calling myself a builder, paint a fence without calling myself a painter, and describe a natural event without needing some description that you instruct me to use.
2. In one of your articles you state: 'and it is rare for a cyclone system to cross the equator'. Can you please tell me the names and years of cyclones that have crossed the equator.
No, because I know of none that have done so, as I have inferred. But I would never say something was absolutely impossible, and we have not been collecting records since the inception of the planet. As I said, it is rare, so rare in fact that it has not been recorded in modern times. Cyclones form within 6 deg of the equator and move north or south in the same hemisphere. But I can imagine a system so severe that it forms separate cells on both sides of the equatorial band and at the same time, each side taking off on its own thereafter. I cannot provide many examples simply because I do not have the time to search, but here's one to start you off "With its circulation center at 1.5°N Typhoon Vamei's circulation was on both sides of the equator." http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/tc.htm
"I... have been checking your free weather outlooks over the last few years. Your accuracy rate in my opinion is extremely poor"
How extremely odd. Then why on earth do you continue to waste your time??? This says more about you than it does about my work. You say you check up on me to continually reinforce your bias? So why not leave it and take up something more rewarding to you? It sounds like you don't know how to interpret what I write, so you will always end up with the disappointment you search for. Fortunately there are others in sufficient quantities who do understand it, and who get some benefit, or I would have gone out of business many moons ago. The market place is not silly, and I note that John calls most farmers "dumb". You appear to have the same difficulty John has with the concept of tolerance, imagining that anyone who sees the world differently to you is evil. As for farmers, I find most of them very switched on and in my humble opinion the only group in the country who know anything significant about weather. They do support our work which enables us to carry on the business and pay our staff wages, for which we are grateful. But if you do not like a brand of toothpaste you cannot speak for others. People can make up their own minds.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Apr, 2015
Daryl may well wish to comment on your error-ridden reply Ken, but it again raises an ethical point we must take issue with. Can you not defend your astrological prediction method without having to resort to lies to influence people? You claim that:
'I note that John calls most farmers "dumb". You appear to have the same difficulty John has with the concept of tolerance, imagining that anyone who sees the world differently to you is evil.'
Please show where we've called 'most farmers "dumb",' or else retract the insulting accusation and apologise. And don't try and say that you simply got the 'impression' or the 'feeling' that I would probably view farmers as dumb because some buy your almanac. You've put the word dumb inside quotes, signifying to readers that I used that actual word to describe most farmers, and that this is our view of them as a group. Provide the evidence for your claim Ken or by your silence acknowledge that you've lied again.
You also claim that my view is that 'anyone who sees the world differently to' the way I see it 'is evil, and that I won't tolerate their different viewpoints. Yet more lies on your part Ken. Again, please show us all where we've expressed the view that anyone who has different views to us must by definition be evil. Of course some are evil, take that guy you have an unhealthy fascination with, Hitler, he was evil. But people like Hitler were evil because of what they did, not simply because they saw the world differently to us. Many of my friends and even my cat sees the world differently to me, but I don't think they're evil.
I may and do call your belief in astrology as silly, but how puerile and deceptive on your part to then inform the world that I have called you, and not just your belief in astrology, evil. You continually and deviously take things I say and twist them to say something that clearly was never stated nor implied. You deliberately take my true views and distort them, weaving lie after lie to paint a false picture that your followers will naturally take issue with and side with you, and against us.
Is this what it takes to keep your clients loyal Ken, asinine lies to deflect scrutiny from your failures, creating a fiction for them to hate and rail against? When people start spreading lies about their opponents to sway opinions, to me this is a sure sign of desperation, that honest avenues have failed, despair is setting in, failure is looming and foul deeds are seen as the only way forward. You may not have yet lost the war Ken, but you've already lost your integrity.
-
Comment by Graham, 18 Apr, 2015
Hi John. If I may focus on just one of the myriad of Ken's errors, because he's blurted it out before and continues to do so despite being corrected.
"Cyclones form within 6 deg of the equator"
No they don't, they usually form more than 5 degrees from the equator. The coriolis effect is zero at the equator (remember Michael Palin being scammed in his show Pole to Pole?) and a cyclone needs to be more than 5 degrees away for the force to be sufficient to start the spin. Even Ken's own link says this and was just pointing out one of the rare exceptions.
A good explanation can be found here http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/articles/ele_131205_e.htm. Basically coriolis is caused by the rotation of the earth and disappointingly for Ken, there is no lunar or astrological input at all.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Apr, 2015
Thanks for that Graham. Clearly Daryl prompted Ring to reveal his ignorance regarding cyclones. As you'll be aware, highlighting one of Ring's errors and saying that 'he's blurted it out before and continues to do so despite being corrected' describes much of what Ring claims in support of his astrological view of the weather. Ring said that it was rare for a cyclone system to cross the equator, then in his answer to Daryl he admits that it was so rare that he knows of none that have done so, and defends his claim of saying they might by saying, 'But I would never say something was absolutely impossible'. That's like me saying that it's not that we don't see unicorns because they don't exist, it's because they're rare. But Ring says he can imagine these cyclones, so I guess that makes them real, at least in his world.
-
Comment by Mikaere, 18 Apr, 2015
Hi John. Re astrology or science? Ken Ring seems to spend a lot of time rebutting criticisms and repeating his view of science and history. As well, his critics have invested similar time and energy. As such, there has been a lot of reactive prose and repeated dialogue; a great deal of 'creative logic' on the part of S.B's detractors, as well as some pathetic insults.
A critique of Ken's publication is valid, as is an analysis of the methodology he employs to elicit his data. That's how science works. It's not a witch hunt to attempt to falsify a theory. A publication which is sold for profit should be absolutely open to scrutiny. If the author is unhappy with any criticism, the best way to address it is to prove it to be unfounded, with evidence, not rhetoric.
Perhaps it would be more productive for him in the long-run (and less stressful and time-consuming) to extract his predictions for a particular period and tabulate them with what actually transpired. This would need to be over a reasonable time period, not a few days. Cherry-picking dates, or attaching post-event interpretations would not be appropriate. Empirical data such as temperatures, levels of precipitation etc. would take precedence over opinions as to what constitutes a drought or a cyclone. This would be an exercise in statistics, nothing else.
Perhaps, to make things fair, an independent person could stipulate the dates to be examined. Then a statistical analysis could be performed to give a true picture of the predictions. I guess it would be important to somehow quantify data when an exact date is not specified, or a range of dates is supplied for a weather event. There would also be a need to filter out any ambiguous or contradictory predictions from other sources such as blogs. Also, the analysis would need to consider any 'shotgun' predictions and address false positives and false negatives. Taken-for-granted knowledge (e.g. warmer temperatures in summer) would not be relevant but a prediction of snow on or around New Year's Day would certainly be significant.
I know people have analysed historical data informally but this has not stopped the controversy. Perhaps a doctoral student could find some way to make the issue into a thesis.
I can't see the debate ceasing until some form of definitive survey is performed. Perhaps not even then...
-
Comment by Daryl, 20 Apr, 2015
Hi John, cheers for posting my comments.
Ken, thanks for your response.
I'll drop the astrology argument, you may call yourself what you like. My point was simply if you googled your statement about Sagittarius, the search results were all astrology websites, and yours was at the top of the search. You may wish to have a word with google about that.
In regards to Typhoon Vamei, the article seems to be suggesting that the moon controls the formation, direction and speed of them. In the same paragraph it talks of heavier cyclone years due to the position of the moon. When I read the paragraph about cyclones crossing the equator I got the the impression of a 'heavy' cyclone barrelling across the equator under the direct control of the moon. Graham has summed up the Coriolis effect nicely (comment 632), and it is my understanding that this causes a cyclone to spin and trade winds are responsible for moving them around. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the moon is responsible for the formation of cyclones? Also do you have any evidence in regards to the moon controlling the speed of weather systems?
As for me wasting my time checking your site and reinforcing my bias, let me tell you how I have come to the conclusion that you are not very good at long range 'opinions'. I have been a surfer, sailor and snowboarding for the past 25 years. So naturally, I love weather. Knowing what it's doing, about to do, or could do (within a week) is key to me for these three sports. I check websites with free information pertaining to the weather. Websites such as Metservice and Metvuw. I'm not saying that these guys get it right all the time, but to me they are taking what is happening at the time, and making forecasts for the next few days, out to week or so. Metservice I really am only looking at current conditions and three day rain maps. For longer range, I tend to look at metvuw's 10 day forecast charts, which give me a good indication of what's coming up.
As I posted in a previous comment on this webpage, my parents were once gifted one of your almanacs. I found your website and decided to read your free articles, mostly the ones around forecasting weather. I was extremely interested to see if you really could forecast weather using the moon and the sun and planetary alignments. I mean, here is a guy going completely against the mould of current weather forecasting methods, and putting out weather maps and 'predictions' of major weather events years in advance! Could this really be possible? So I used your articles in conjunction with actual weather forecasting sites to see if yours stacked up. Sadly Ken, as interested as I was, the answer for me is no. As time went on and most of your 'predictions' of floods and storms etc failed, or were out by a few weeks (highly likely when you predict a storm in winter), I started to realise you were just guessing. You did get a few right Ken, you're not a 100% failure, just not nearly enough to show me that your method actually works. So I check the weather, look at metvuw to see what's coming up, and then check one of your articles to see if you have called it. So what does this say about me Ken?
I recently stumbled upon the SB website and having read through the article and comments, you fail to successfully rebut questions about the many embarrassing mistakes, cover-ups and denials you have made over the years. You're entitled to your opinions and beliefs Ken, and if people want to pay money for your products, well that's their problem.
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Apr, 2015
Re your comments at #634 above Mikaere, I agree that Ring's prediction claims need to be addressed with evidence and not rhetoric, and in the scientific world this would happen and the matter would be settled, but that is not the world that Ring frequents. Offers have been made by those with expertise in statistics to analyse Ring's data, but he refuses to provide it. Furthermore, Ring argues that the scientific method in general and statistics in particular are not applicable to what he does. Some examples of what he has said:
'Weather is not a science... Weather doesn't fulfill any scientific criterion. So I can't supply empiricism, can't apply statistics.'
'...what I am doing is pre-science, and cannot fit present day rigor. That is why I don't claim that it can be tested and suggest it objectively can't be.'
'...any rigorous scientific assessment of the moon method is just not viable.'
' [my method] won't stand the kind of rigid day-by-day analysis of daily forecasting'
'My work... is not intended for the scientific community... I am claiming my method has use and could be explored, but not by scientists...'
'My work is not intended for city-based academics who fancy themselves as "scientifically literate"...'
Ring is utterly dismissive of scientific views of his method, holds his critics in contempt, and argues that authorities, meteorologists, academics and universities are all conspiring to suppress the truth about astrological weather forecasting. He has labelled science and weather organisations 'corrupt' and academics 'liars and frauds'.
So clearly Ring is not going to accept the results of a scientific analysis as to the accuracy of his method, unless of course it found in his favour, which is about as likely as finding a unicorn working at McDonalds. If Ring was even slightly confident that science might validate his claims then he would be pestering scientists to look at his data, not building a wall around it.
You say that 'Perhaps it would be more productive for him... to extract his predictions for a particular period and tabulate them with what actually transpired'. This sounds good, but again, Ring refuses to do this, and has refused for years and years. If he has ever privately performed such a comparison, then clearly the results weren't favourable as they were never revealed. Although Ring makes vague claims to the contrary, he has provided no evidence that any genuine, independent, professional surveys have ever been performed on his method's accuracy.
And the unfortunate reality is that Ring has shown that he cannot be trusted to personally make the comparison between his predictions and what actually transpired. As we've noted previously, when attempting to back up a rain forecast Ring said, 'Look outside. It is wet'. When informed that 'it is not wet today Ken. Looking outside it is a beautiful sunny day...' , Ring replied, 'I wrote "it is wet" in Titirangi at around 11am. In this district the bush can glisten from rain from the previous evening until the sun gets at least overhead'. Who but Ring could describe a 'beautiful sunny day' as 'it is wet', simply because there is moisture on some leaves from the previous day's rain? I could provide pages of quotes where Ring ignores reality solely to make what happened appear to fit his failed forecast. Ring simply cannot be trusted to judge his own data, it must be independent, but as I say, Ring simply won't accept an independent survey. You may reply that it doesn't matter what Ring accepts, the evidence will speak for itself. This is true, but let's remember that we're trying to end the debate between Ring and his skeptics. I believe the evidence has already delivered its verdict, and quite convincingly, but I don't believe any evidence will ever stop Ring arguing that astrology can divine the weather and earthquakes. For him the debate will continue as long as the constellations cycle above.
As for getting 'a doctoral student' to look at his predictions, I'm not sure if most people realise how vague Ring's almanac forecasts really are. Any scientific analysis would have to decide beforehand what a stated forecast actually meant and exactly what would determine success or failure. But looking at Ring's daily forecasts it is quite difficult to decide what weather we should expect in most of the country since he only details 6 cities (last year it was only 4).
The images above show the forecasts for yesterday (Click the images for a larger image). Note that the text for Christchurch says: 'Changeable, sunny, chance of thunderstorms and isolated showers'. So Ring could argue that his forecast is accurate if it was sunny with no rain, sunny with rain, sunny with thunderstorms, no sun and no rain, no sun and rain or no sun and thunderstorms. Or changeable, all of those, sun, rain and thunderstorms. So no matter what weather Christchurch got, Ring can claim he was right. Same with Wellington, 'Mostly sunny and dry', if it's sunny with no rain, he's right, if it does rain, he's still right. Even if it was mostly sunny and then it snowed heavily, he's still right as the day was indeed mostly sunny. Now have a look at his 'Rain Potential' map. Pure white means very little chance of rain and pitch black means a high chance of rain, and the hundreds of shades of grey in-between is, well, simply guesswork, somewhere between 0 and 100%. Look at Christchurch, does the shading suggest a 'chance of thunderstorms and isolated showers'? The text for all the above 6 cities all leave open the possibility of rain, but does the map help us decide what might happen, or would ten different people all read it differently? And what if you live in Gore or Nelson or any other place that doesn't get special mention, that vague map is supposed to be your forecast for the day. Of course Ring will say that he provides a separate 'Rain' page for the month that you also have to consult, which does include Nelson, and if we look at that for Nelson on the 20th, then it says 'd'. Looking up the key we learn that 'd = mainly dry'. That's right, not dry, but mainly dry. There is no 'dry, no rain' option. So Nelson's weather was forecast as 'mainly dry', meaning that if there was no rain or if there was rain, both would be have to be classed as a successful prediction for Ring's method. For Gore, Ring's 'Rain' page says 's', meaning 'significant showers'. But personally, looking at his rain map, the shading for Gore doesn't suggest 'significant showers' for me. And if you're wondering how we should describe the rain we experience, Ring uses the following: 'mainly dry, light showers, passing showers, significant showers, rain and heavy falls'. What, you're not sure if you know the precise difference between a light shower and a passing shower? Couldn't a passing shower be light, you ask? And look at his 'Frost/Snow' map, the deep south is, what, is that black or a dark grey? A high likelihood of either frost or snow, as if they were the same thing! If there is a slight frost or a big dump of snow, both can be counted as a successful prediction. And if neither happen, then Ring is still right as he didn't say either would definitely happen, just that there was a chance that they might.
We also have to remember that Ring insists on a wide window for his predictions, so even if he clearly says a sunny day is very likely on a particular day at a particular place, and it actually rains heavily, if it is sunny in a town 80 kms away or if that particular place gets a lovely sunny day a week later, then Ring still classes this as a successful forecast. It doesn't matter that it rained on someone's wedding or field day, as long as a sunny day turns up somewhere nearby in time and space, then that's close enough for Ken Ring.
So if independent people were to grade Ring's forecasts, they must either accept his all-encompassing conditions, which means nigh on every forecast can be given a pass mark, or else they must ignore, as you say Mikaere, 'any ambiguous or contradictory predictions' and 'Taken-for-granted knowledge (e.g. warmer temperatures in summer)'. The first method would produce a nonsense result, based as it would be on predictions that couldn't be wrong no matter what happened. The second method I believe would quickly determine that Ring's almanac makes very few predictions that aren't ambiguous and thus very few that can be taken as genuine predictions. The predictions are generally so vague that they are worthless, and could be interpreted to say almost anything. This is typical fortune telling language.
Also any prediction method that promises to predict the weather for a wedding or field day, as Ring does, and includes a disclaimer that negates this promise, is not fit for the purpose, and no doubt breaks some fair trading laws.
The reality is that we can't usually tell between a light shower and light rain or a sunny day and a fine day, so it's hard to decide if Ring was accurate or not. But the one thing we can all recognise is extreme weather, we can all tell the difference between a light shower and a hurricane, between a mainly dry day and enough rain to cause a flood. And if we want to be warned of any weather, it is the extreme weather we want to know about. So while we might argue with Ring over whether it was 'significant showers' or just 'passing showers', there is no ambiguity over extreme weather. No one confuses a warm, sunny day with a polar blast. Since extreme weather causes more hardship than a light drizzle, if Ring's almanac predicts anything of worth, it must accurately warn of extreme weather. And since extreme weather is easy to spot both in predictions and the real world, it should be quite simple to check, after the fact, whether an extreme weather event was clearly forecast in Ring's almanac. This I feel is the best test of Ring's prediction method.
And the result? Every single extreme weather event that I've compared to Ring's almanac was missed completely by Ring. Floods, snow, droughts, storms, polar blasts, and not that they're weather, but of course earthquakes, all were events that Ring was utterly oblivious of, he had no idea that they were going to happen. Because there is no ambiguity, and because the event is well documented in the media and Ring's predictions are well documented in his almanac, anyone can decide for themselves whether Ring's prediction for that time and space is accurate. And this also works in reverse, since it's not that Ring doesn't make predictions of extreme weather events, he does. When Ring predicts that a storm or polar blast will hit a certain area, it is quite easily to check the media and weather records to see if his prediction was accurate. Again, not a single prediction of extreme weather that Ring has forecast that I've checked up on has actually happened. Not one.
If Ring's response is that his method is only really any good at predicting drizzle and partly cloudy days, then I would say that it's certainly not worth paying for. Let's stop quibbling over whether Ring's drizzle predictions are better than a coin toss, and ask why he won't warn us about extreme weather events. There was a polar blast in the south last week, and from Ring... nothing.
-
Comment by Mikaere, 21 Apr, 2015
Hi John. Thank you. I appreciate your detailed explanation on how my suggestions would not be acceptable for Mr Ring. They make perfect sense and your examples clearly show how such vague and contradictory predictions could not really undergo any form of robust analysis. I guess I was confused by references to science in previous posts, such as:
'Rather, I used a science far more advanced that local geologists can [sic] seem to be able to get their heads and jobs around.'
I assume that has to do with earthquake prediction but does show the author has some aspirations as a scientist. Then again, the quotes you provided indicate the exact opposite. Contradictions abound!
Just a thought about the post asking why we don't provide our full names. I presume that Fermin is the correspondent's full name?
-
Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Apr, 2015
Hi Mikaere. Ah yes, there is no doubt that contradictions abound in Ring's work. He's a real Jekyll and Hyde character, saying whatever it takes to convince his audience. As your quote shows, to some he claims to be a scientist (or mathematician or psychologist) and to others he says that he's not doing anything scientific at all. You mentioned applying statistics to test Ring's claims, but I noted that Ring claims that:
'Weather is not a science... Weather doesn't fulfill any scientific criterion. So I can't supply empiricism, can't apply statistics.'
And yet in a blatant contradiction, Ring has told others that:
'I am running a sincere business... I'm doing it as a scientist, using scientific tools of statistics and calculating equipment.'
It's easy to see why people become confused when looking at Ring's claims. Initially I used to be confused too, I couldn't understand the paradoxes, how could opposing and contradictory claims both be correct? What was I missing? Was Ring using statistics or wasn't he? Then my cat sat me down and explained it to me, a true paradox requires acceptable premises, and Ring's contradictory claims are not paradoxes since one or both of the premises are lies. From there it all fell into place. Ring was a charlatan, effortlessly changing his claims to suit those he was addressing. Problem solved.
As for our recent post — Why not disclose your full names? — we've said that the default is that we're happy for people to use an alias and we won't provide the full names of those that make comments unless they specifically request it. Fermin did provide his full name, but his email apparently gave his full name automatically, as many are set up to do, along with a "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE". He made no expression of whether he wished it to be published or not, so by default we didn't. But of course to be taken seriously, he probably should have insisted we reveal his identity.
Previous Page
Next Page
Return to Article
Add a Comment
|