Readers' Comments:        Add a Comment        Return to Article

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

Comments:

639. Comment by Ken Ring, 21 Apr, 2015

     "There was a polar blast in the south last week, and from Ring... nothing." [Quote from 'Silly Beliefs']

     What on earth..??? The level of bias here is ridiculous, which makes it a total waste of time responding to your endless attacks. I tweeted on 30 March that a cold blast was coming 7th-18th to NZ which means it would last until about the18th, with the focus midway between 7th-18th which = 12th.

     https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/582141752737341440

     That is exactly what happened.

     Then I said that the snow would vanish, which it currently is doing

     https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/589028856985563136

     It has been the same with other predictions, but there is only a focus here on omissions and a desperate search to always prove my work to be of little use. But anyone can do that - it proves nothing. I do not ever claim 100%. I predicted this cold blast two years ago, and farmers could have prepared for it. That is the use of this work.

     I did suggest in the Ireland almanac and the many radio interviews pre-April that that April would be the driest month of the year for Ireland - and it has been, and my Irish sponsors and readers are very pleased. Those who planned for extended outdoor activities are well satisfied.

     I did get that there would be gales in Hunter and north Sydney in the past few days - it is listed in the severe events page (p131) of the 2015 NSW almanac as beginning around the 19th, which it did.

     I did get the recent polar blast here, and that we would warm up rather suddenly after it, see this year's NZ almanac and recent tweets, and that has happened - no other weather service has achieved such results.

     If you are setting out to persecute me at least read what I have put out there. Otherwise you merely demonstrate again and again that this website is for public bullies who don't even read what I put into the public domain. In fact I suggest that you dare not, for mortal fear you may have to give credit where credit might be due.

     The constant mistake made here is to assume I am claiming certainty - I am not and never would, as I am not God. Weather is an inexact science, but you don't ever seem able to grasp that. if you did understand it, you would not call for rigorous analysis, which is scientifically impossible for something inexact. It would be like polling atheists who were requested to read the Bible, to "prove", from their opinions, whether or not God existed.

     Why don't you find another punching bag? I am getting great accuracy these days. Even my weather map of 20 April that you so kindly reproduced shows the fading polar air stream.

640. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Apr, 2015

     Do we need to remind you Ken as to where your claimed skills lie? Evidently so. You claim to be a long range weather forecaster, not a forecaster that tweets a vague warning just before the event, and then another as it's happening. The version of your 2015 Almanac that I consult doesn't have a Twitter account or Internet access. Once $50 has been expended, some would say wasted, on your written predictions, one shouldn't have to spend more money to also check for updates that you might choose to sprinkle elsewhere closer to the event. You say Ken that one of the advantages of your method is that predictions can be done long range, 200 years or more if you wanted to, and they don't change.

     So Ken, if you knew two years ago that 'a cold blast was coming 7th-18th', why didn't you mention this in your Almanac, wouldn't those that bought it have wanted to know? They're the ones that have given you money Ken, surely they deserve the most accurate of your predictions! But no, the warning you give in your tweet refers readers to an article written just a few weeks before the event. And for the record Ken, your tweet was issued on Mar 29, not the 30th as you claim. It's worrying that you can't even quote yourself accurately! And since you always refuse to publish what your tweets say, preferring to reinterpret them for your followers, for the benefit of our readers, here is your tweet:

     Ken Ring
     @kenringweather
     Autumn and winter long range for NZ
     Swing to cooler 7-18 April.
     http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=512&type=home ...
     4:26 AM - 29 Mar 2015

     Note how you didn't actually tweet that 'a cold blast was coming', but actually said 'Swing to cooler'. Only after the fact have you redefined that as 'a cold blast'. But you also refer us to an article, perhaps that mentions a 'a cold blast'? No it doesn't, but then I'm sure you're assuming and hoping that most people won't look. So what does it say? Looking for mention of April and snow, we find that you wrote:

     'Autumn and winter are milder for most. April 7-18 brings a cooler spell due to the passage of planet Mercury across behind the sun, focus midway around 12 April, with temps warming again after 20 April'.

     'A wetter and warmer-than-average autumn for most, except the top of South Island, is followed by a rather mild winter. In the last 10 days of April snow is likely for Queenstown...'

     You do mention 'a cooler spell' for that time, with no mention of where in NZ so we must assume the entire country, but you say that temperatures in autumn are 'milder for most', so it could be that 'a cooler spell' simply meant a slight drop back to average autumn temperatures. There is no hint that you were predicting 'a cold blast' with the snow that it brought. Indeed you go on to talk of 'warmer-than-average autumn for most' and that the first snow was not expected in Queenstown until 'the last 10 days of April'. And you show your credulity when you explain that the 'cooler spell [is] due to the passage of planet Mercury across behind the sun'. It seems you're not even sure whether Mercury went across or behind the sun!

     In your comment to us you say that 'I predicted this cold blast two years ago, and farmers could have prepared for it. That is the use of this work'. Again, you have not mentioned a 'cold blast' in your almanac or recent articles and tweets, you have only mentioned 'cold blast' AFTER it occurred. And since your 2015 Almanac wasn't available to farmers two years ago, or even one, then there is no way they could have prepared for it way back then, and they certainly can't prepare for an event that you omit to mention.

     As for your second tweet, 'I said that the snow would vanish, which it currently is doing', any fool can watch the TV News and learn of the current weather situation and then make a comment. Where is your prediction from two years ago that there would even be some snow that would then be in a position to vanish? Are you forgetting your prediction that snow shouldn't even be there until 'the last 10 days of April'? So your bold claim Ken the 'I did get the recent polar blast here, and that we would warm up rather suddenly after it, see this year's NZ almanac...' is clearly not true at all.

     Your desperate and childish attempts to rewrite history and hide your failures are simply pathetic. And again, these tweets are all short term predictions, and still wrong. And right or wrong, your Almanac readers don't get to see them anyway. So perhaps purchasers of your Almanac should forego their purchase and just read your updated predictions, since they might be slightly more accurate and they're free.

     But strangely Ken you did make one very truthful observation when you admitted that our challenging your claims is 'a desperate search to always prove my work to be of little use. But anyone can do that - it proves nothing'. OK, it's not true that we're 'desperate' to prove your work worthless, but it is indeed true that anyone can always prove your 'work to be of little use'. Rather than prove nothing as you believe, it actually proves what you says it proves, that your work is of little use.

     As for your claims for accurate predictions from your almanacs for Ireland and Australia, we have no way of checking that, but based on how you deviously attempt to mislead us over predictions from the NZ almanac we see no reason not to suspect that you are doing the same for Ireland and Australia. Have you heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?

     You claim Ken that we're just 'public bullies who don't even read what I put into the public domain. In fact I suggest that you dare not, for mortal fear you may have to give credit where credit might be due'. What nonsense Ken, surely you can grasp that we can only explain why your prediction claims are bogus because we do indeed read what you 'put into the public domain'? If you would demonstrate that your forecast method was at least as accurate as conventional methods then we would support you, but all your claims to date scream scam.

     You also say that 'The constant mistake made here is to assume I am claiming certainty - I am not... Weather is an inexact science, but you don't ever seem able to grasp that. if you did understand it, you would not call for rigorous analysis, which is scientifically impossible for something inexact'. We have never said that we expect absolute certainty from your predictions Ken, although based on their astrological source, perhaps we should. All we expect is that they should be quite clear in what they predict, with no ambiguity, and that they should be right far more often than they are wrong, and certainly better than chance would allow.

     And for the umpteenth time Ken, weather is not a science, exact or inexact. It's simply something that happens in the atmosphere, like lightning. As for your silly claim that it is 'scientifically impossible' to apply 'rigorous analysis' to the claimed accuracy of your predictions, then how come you continually insist that 'My error is usually 15-20%, same as other inexact sciences'? In your May 2015 Newsletter you claim that 'Our accuracy has been assessed at around 85%', but you always neglect to reveal by whom. How could an analysis of your business have produced these figures if such analysis is 'scientifically impossible'? Which is the lie Ken? I say they're both lies, since the accuracy of your predictions can be analysed, but that the accuracy that you claim is bogus.

     You finish by claiming, with no supporting evidence, that 'I am getting great accuracy these days. Even my weather map of 20 April that you so kindly reproduced shows the fading polar air stream'. Perhaps to some it does Ken, but you make no mention of this snow and polar blast in your text. And let's remember that the polar blast happened back around the 12th, not the 20th, and here's what your prediction for the 12th and 13th was (Click the image for a larger image):

     

     Where's the polar blast prediction Ken? Is that what the 'H' means? Look at your 'Frost/Snow' map, predicting zero to a very low chance of snow, and your 'Frost/Snow' maps for the next 3 days are identical. No snow expected anywhere. Your 'Snow Expectations' page in your almanac (pg 526) doesn't even start until April 19-20, wrongly predicting that 'Queenstown may receive the first significant snowfall for the year'. On your page where you detail what the perigees will bring in 2015 (pg 25), for April there is no mention of snow or polar blasts, but for the 19-20th April you warn instead that we should 'Expect heavy rain and flooding across both islands', and yet this never happened. How can you say that you're 'getting great accuracy these days' when you missed the polar blast and the flooding you did predict never happened? Your belief in your ability is clearly delusional.

641. Comment by Daryl, 22 Apr, 2015

     Ken, c'mon bud, snow melt mid Autumn? No way!!!!! Predicting it would melt as it was melting? Hahahahahaha!
     Ken, again, c'mon bud, you are killing me here! Metvuw was showing the approach of cold polar air at the time of your tweet. Is this a prediction you are claiming success for? Or are you happy to admit you just checked a few weather maps and tweeted off the back of that? I don't have access to your almanacs, can someone help me here? Could this be one you got right?

     If you really do want to prove that you are not peddling psuedoscientific rubbish about your ability to predict weather and earthquakes to an unsuspecting few, then could you provide some rebuttal to the article bearing your name on this site? I found it humourously written, and I had a good chuckle at some of the points exposing you as a chronic liar, and peddler of absolute nonsense.

     For you it must be extremely embarrassing to have all your lies and contradictions exposed like this. Have you read it? If these people are just being big fat meanies Ken and picking on you, then why can't you respond in a manner that proves these accussations incorrect? What about going through the section 'Ken Ring's Amazing World of Contradictions', and explaining these gems?

     Here is my personal favourite from the 'Silly Beliefs - Ken Ring' page under 'Ken Ring's Amazing World of Contradictions':

     'I welcome any analysis'

     versus

     'Daily analysis of results is not valid'

642. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Apr, 2015

     Thanks Daryl. Re one of Ring's predictions, you ask him, 'Could this be one you got right?' We've said this before, but it's worth repeating I think. We must remember that even if it does, for example, snow on a day and at a place predicted by Ring, this is not automatically a rare win for Ring, since it doesn't mean that he KNEW it would snow. It was simply a guess that came true. It's like saying someone KNEW the coin was going to land heads on a coin toss when it does indeed land heads. They didn't know, even though they predicted heads, it was merely a guess! It frustrates me when some people say that even though he gets most predictions wrong, Ken does get some predictions right. No he doesn't. He is just as ignorant about the ones he seems to get right as the ones that he gets wrong. It's all guessing. We can all get a coin toss correct on numerous occasions, but no one says we KNEW what we were doing on those occasions, and that our powers somehow deserted us on the times we failed. Even when we get it right, we're still guessing! So until he demonstrates otherwise, we shouldn't give Ring even fleeting support by suggesting that he sometimes gets his predictions correct.

643. Comment by Graham, 22 Apr, 2015

     Hi John. I do like Ken's faux indignation, very funny. I'll let you explain to him the difference between a cooling trend over an 11 day period and a polar blast. But I like the fact that he has given his blessing for you publishing that April 20 weather chart, because that was exactly the way I was going to suggest you check his forecasts.

     You are quite right when you say that it is extreme weather, or at least out of the ordinary weather, that should be used to test the veracity of a forecasting method. There is a level of accuracy in any prediction. I could accurately predict a hot day in Dubai on 3 June 2023. Almost certainly correct. What I couldn't do is predict a rare rain event. So all I'm really doing is telling you what I know about the climate. Even in NZ, guessing normal weather for the time of year will get you regular hits, especially if your forecasts are along the lines of sunny with isolated showers and possible thunderstorms.

     But as it happens, a rare event was happening on 20th of April, or at least developing, just not in NZ. An east coast low near NSW causing the worst storms in Sydney in a decade. Looking at the analysis chart (here) you see a low nearing the NSW coast, a deep trough through the Tasman and a ridge well south from Tasmania to southern NZ (1028hPa near Invercargill). Compare that to Ken's map [here], a high in the Bight and a ridge up the east coast (ie nice picnic weather), strong southwestly winds in southern NZ (1001hPa near Invercargill) and significantly, no sign of any once in a decade storms in NSW.

     I hope the residents of Sydney who were silly enough to buy Ken's Australian Almanac check his forecast then chuck it in to the river now flowing past their houses.

     So for any of Ken's claims, you can check the weather maps for the last 6 days covering the Aust/NZ area here or if you want to check up on one of Ken's retrospective claims, then the maps are all published in the Monthly Weather Reviews eventually. In order for a forecast to be correct, weather systems need to be in the right place at the right time and of the right intensity.

644. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Apr, 2015

     Hi Graham. I've seen the extensive reporting on the TV News of the floods in and around Sydney and of someone's house floating away, and Ken must be quite angry, and probably talking to lawyers, that not one of the news anchors, reporters or emergency relief heads acknowledged that it would have all been much worse if it wasn't for Ken Ring's accurate warnings which at least allowed people to be prepared.

645. Comment by Ken Ring, 23 Apr, 2015

     So now you are claiming that I missed the recent NSW severe weather?

     Again, you are simply lying.

     On p131 of this year's NSW Weather Almanac for 2015 are these entries:

     April

     "18th Chance of thunderstorms in the Northwest Slopes and Plains, Southwest Slopes, Central Tablelands and Mid-North Coast. Strong winds and gales likely in the Upper and Lower Western, Central West Slopes, Southern Tablelands, Hunter, Metropolitan and South Coast districts.

     19th Strong winds for the Hunter, Metropolitan and South Coast regions".

     

     Also there is an entry on p134 in the severe events table. But I have no doubt that you, John, and your fellows will find a comma or a hyphen that you will judge to be a hanging offence, rather than face that the lunar method does work, not all the time, but often enough for preparations to be made for destructive events coming.

     Remember, I do not write for you. I write for those who request this type of information and are willing to pay for my service. There is nothing unethical about that. But there is plenty unethical about your enthusiasm to publicly persecute small businesses that promote alternative viewpoints to your own.

646. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Apr, 2015

     We did not lie Ken as we did not categorically assert that you missed the recent NSW severe weather. Re your NSW predictions we said that 'we have no way of checking that, but based on how you deviously attempt to mislead us over predictions from the NZ almanac we see no reason not to suspect that you are doing the same for... Australia.' And thanks to your reply, it shows that we were right to doubt your claims of foreknowledge.

     I'm not familiar with the locations you mention, so I don't know if they, and only they, were the areas struck by devastating flooding. However you make no mention of flooding so severe that a house could be washed away, actually you make no mention of flooding at all, or even heavy rain. You talk only of thunderstorms in one area and strong winds in others. Why no mention of heavy rain and flooding if this is what you foresaw Ken? In the NZ almanac you wrote in one recent prediction, 'Expect heavy rain and flooding', and in another, 'heavy rain, thunderstorms and local flooding likely'. So clearly you will write 'heavy rain and flooding' if you think it is very likely. But in your NSW predictions there is no mention of this, so clearly you were ignorant of this eventuality. You may have predicted some mildly severe weather Ken, but not of the sort that arrived.

     Again you are grasping at straws Ken, feverishly and desperately trawling through your predictions to try and salvage your reputation. After the fact you now talk of 'severe events', 'severe weather' and 'destructive events coming', but where in your predictions Ken do we find clear warnings like, 'destructive events coming'? Admit it Ken, you failed again, and your pathetic scrambling to now reinterpret your worthless forecasts fools no one.

     You clearly read our comments Ken, so why in your reply do you focus on just one point, the NSW failure, and ignore all our other criticisms and questions? Why won't you explain why your tweets are different to what your almanac says, meaning your predictions change closer to the time? Why won't you explain how you produced an accuracy analysis of your business if such analysis is 'scientifically impossible'? Why won't you defend your claim that we've called 'most farmers "dumb"'? Why the silence Ken? If your claims are true and not merely lies to promote your business, then why won't you publicly defend them? People read our challenges to you Ken and then see you ignoring them, do you really think that this enhances your reputation for integrity?

     You finish with your usual pleading, 'Remember, I do not write for you'. Well Ken, we won't take it personally that we're not in your thoughts as you write, but remember this, we do write for you. Not just for you of course, you're way down the list, but every word is carefully crafted with you in mind. As for your belief that there is nothing unethical in you providing information to those that 'are willing to pay', actually there is if the information you sell is bogus, it's called a scam.

647. Comment by Graham, 25 Apr, 2015

     Hi John. I'm categorically stating that Ken missed the NSW storms. He quotes his forecast from the 18th, so I can assume that the 20th said nothing, or like I said in my first comment, nice picnic weather. By publishing the weather chart he is telling his clients what he thinks is going to happen. The fact is there was a deep slow moving low moving down the NSW coast from the 20th to the 23rd April, producing gale force winds and heavy rainfall for days. Ken's chart doesn't have this low therefore he didn't know it was going to happen. Anyone who uses that chart wouldn't know either. So how is that a warning? I really don't think that can be any clearer.

     As for the polar blast in NZ on the 12th, a polar blast is so called because it draws cold air up from deep in the polar regions ie S'ly wind previously being enjoyed by penguins is drawn up over NZ. I have taken Ken's chart for that date and overlaid the wind directions that would have resulted if Ken's chart were accurate (click here). Air rotates anti-clockwise around a high resulting in SE'ly winds in the North Island and NE'ly winds in the South Island. Even if that air did a full lap of that high pressure system, at no point does it go into the polar region, therefore no polar blast. Or to summarise, Ken Ring got it wrong....categorically.

648. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Apr, 2015

     Thanks Graham, and like you I struggle to glean any hint of warning in any of Ring's predictions. Apparently Ring sees these 'destructive events coming' but he just doesn't know how to clearly communicate his premonitions, at least not until after they've happened. And likewise he seems to have great difficulty understanding our questions and criticisms. Maybe we're just from totally different eras and hold radically different worldviews?

     Think about it. Intelligent, informed citizens of the 21st century look to astronomy for answers whereas Ring looks to astrology, we think of doctors testing new vaccines whereas Ring laments that they no longer have to qualify in astrology, we talk of particle physics whereas Ring still talks of the four elements: earth, air, fire and water. When selling a house we check the market for the right time, whereas Ring has said that we should 'sell a house before a full moon'. I get a haircut when it gets long, whereas Ring has advised that 'You are supposed to care for the hair when the moon is in Leo'. Talking about 'Earthquake Indicators' in his latest May Newsletter he advises us to: 'Keep half an eye out for combinations of:'

     'When planets, especially the major ones, occupy either mutual quadrants, trines or are in mutual conjunction or opposition;
     The ascendant, the 4th, the 7th, the 8th, the 12th or the 10th house at the place of the occurrence will be potent for activity.
     The asterism of the day may belong to prithvi (earth) or vayu (air) category;'

     All silly astrological talk that would fit perfectly if we lived in the 10th century, but we don't. Perhaps Ring's medieval mindset is simply incapable of grasping a naturalistic universe? Might it be like teaching a dog quantum mechanics, or even noughts and crosses, is it simply beyond them? Just as dogs bite when they get frustrated, might Ring's refusal to answer questions and his quick slide into intimidation and insults also result from frustration brought about by not being able to fully comprehend the modern world? Like witches dancing naked around a boiling cauldron, does Ring feel that his astrological power of divination is no longer respected, and that the world has moved on without him?
649. Comment by Ken Ring, 25 Apr, 2015

     So, you want me to say, as if I am God, that Mr A's house will be washed away but Mr B's house will be spared, whilst Mrs C's garden will receive exactly 25.72mm. Even the BoM and NZ Metservice don't go there, even from a few hours beforehand. But if, from a year beforehand I don't deliver that, you will label me a fraud. I say, ad nauseam, that I only suggest trends, with suggested dates as focal points, but you do not comprehend, instead making up your own fantasy about what my work should be and then criticising that fantasy. It's like arguing with a 4-year old whether or not if there was a pink elephant on the ceiling, it would be dark or light pink. I seriously doubt now that you realise how absurd you sound. Only an unbelievably silly website could come up with that!

     You say you are unaware of the locations I mentioned when I spoke of my NSW Weather Almanac. So I take it that you have not heard of New South Wales? It is in Australia. Australia is a large continent to our west. Hunter is north of Sydney and is all over the news. Otherwise any atlas will help you to locate it. What is it about my clearly accurate warning for North Sydney on 18th and 19th of April 2015, on p131 of my weather almanac for NSW written a year ago, of "thunderstorms, strong winds and gales", with the accepted leeway in all weather forecasting of 1-2 days, do you not understand??? The word "Metropolitan" is written twice - it means Sydney and for Hunter: Newcastle. If you really don't think I got it right, just read further up this page for my scan, then look up news reports of the past few days.

     Would it not be easier to just say, yes, congratulations (as Channel Seven has done) you got it bang on, and move on with some grace? Otherwise you continue to dig yourself into a hole of your own making.

650. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Apr, 2015

     Once again Ken you tell conflicting stories. In your first paragraph you explain that you are not able to be precise in your forecasts, stating that, 'I say, ad nauseam, that I only suggest trends, with suggested dates as focal points'. You talk about your, I'm guessing, imaginary friends A, B and C, and suggest that you wouldn't be able to warn any of them of the high likelihood of devastating floods, not even a few hours beforehand, let alone how each of them would fare. And here you and I are in total agreement, that your method only suggests trends, eg, it will likely be colder in winter. But then in your second paragraph you completely dismiss this talk of suggestive trends and dates and you take a completely different tack, you now insist that you issued a 'clearly accurate warning for North Sydney on 18th and 19th'.

     So which is it Ken, do you 'suggest trends, with suggested dates', your infamous 'opinions', or is your opinion on any particular day to be seen as a 'clearly accurate warning'? How can they be both Ken? Did your Jekyll persona write the first claim and your Hyde persona write the second, one saying you can't be expected to be precise, and the other saying you 'got it right'?

     Here's a comment from 'The Australian' newspaper: 'With authorities advising the worst of the super storm is over, stories from some of the worst-hit areas are emerging, with the town of Dungog where three people were killed and homes washed away described as a "war zone".'

     Why won't you simply admit that you failed to see it coming? Elsewhere you remind us that you regularly get 20% of your predictions wrong, but I've never seen you ever admit to an actual failed prediction. When challenged you always go to the most ridiculous lengths to show how your forecasts meant something quite different to what they, on the surface, appear to say. But I understand your dilemma. Once you start admitting to shortcomings in your astrological forecasting, such as being unable to predict extreme weather events, then your clients would quickly desert you. You must build a defence, no matter how flimsy and transparent.

     Look you say, I did mention thunderstorms for a large part of NSW (but unfortunately not for the Hunter region), and I did also mention Hunter the next day (but unfortunately not regarding thunderstorms or flooding). I did also mention dates (just not the correct ones). But if we simplify all this, you say, then we can agree that I made mention of NSW, the Hunter region and thunderstorms (which I'm sure we all know can sometimes lead to flooding), and some dates very close to the day the super storm arrived. So ignoring minor details about exactly what was going to happen where and when, I was spot on with my prediction that devastating flooding would hit North Sydney.

     And twice in comment you again mention that you write your predictions a year before the event — 'from a year beforehand' — 'written a year ago' — which to me has the ring of special pleading. It's as if you're explaining that we can't expect you to be terribly accurate since a lot can change in a year, so we should cut you some slack. You seem to be suggesting that non-astrological forecasts can be more accurate than yours because they are made close to the event with access to real time conditions. But let's remember that you insist that it doesn't matter when you jot down your predictions, what is written in the stars will always come to pass. If this is true, then when your predictions are written is irrelevant, so stop harping on about it. You just sound like you're making excuses for your failures.

     I did say Ken that I wasn't familiar with the locations you mentioned when you predicted the 'Chance of thunderstorms in the Northwest Slopes and Plains, Southwest Slopes, Central Tablelands and Mid-North Coast.' etc. But seriously, how could you take that and then suggest that I haven't heard of NSW or even Australia? You keep making analogies about arguing with toddlers — personal experience I'm guessing — so is that why you construct your arguments at that level? And for your information Ken, Australia is NOT 'a large continent to our west' as you claim. The fact is that Australia is the world's smallest continent. Calling Australia a large continent is like calling a mouse a large mammal. I pity the people that listen to your 'wisdom' Ken.

     But anyway, you now talk about your 'clearly accurate warning for North Sydney', even though you never mentioned Sydney once in your predictions. But it doesn't matter if all the people that live in NSW know that the likes of Southwest Slopes etc are in North Sydney (they're not are they Ken?), the reality is that you only predicted a 'Chance of thunderstorms', not that there were 'destructive events coming' (as you now describe them), that would see severe flooding resulting in deaths and houses floating away. In another prediction you talk about 'strong winds and gales' (basically the same thing), but why should someone read 'strong winds' in your almanac and immediately scream, 'Oh my gawd, we need to get everything up high and start sandbagging, Ken says there's going to be severe flooding!' Does the Aussie almanac have a key that the NZ one doesn't have Ken, one that says: strong winds = severe flooding?

     You imply that readers of your Aussie almanac should have clearly known that 'strong winds' meant severe flooding. So tell us Ken, in your predictions where you also mentioned 'Frosts' and 'Dust possible', did that mean, in Ring-speak, two metre snow drifts and dust storms of Biblical proportions? And why didn't they happen? Why do you insist that your readers would immediately and clearly have discerned that there were 'destructive events coming' on reading about thunderstorms and strong winds, but apparently wouldn't have been at all concerned about your dust warning? And let's remember that your Aussie horoscope book contains hundreds of predictions for the entire country covering every day of the year. No matter when and where a severe weather event happens, you will have already written a vague forecast that you feel can be used as proof that you predicted the future. To defend your claim that you forecast floods you can point to your prediction for a 'Chance of thunderstorms in the Northwest Slopes and Plains, Southwest Slopes, Central Tablelands and Mid-North Coast', even though this makes no mention of flooding, covers a huge part of NSW and most of these places never saw floods at all. You can say you did mention Hunter, a region that did see flooding, but it wasn't mentioned in regard to those thunderstorms.

     But again, I don't care if you had detailed the exact areas that were flooded Ken, eg Hunter, because you only warned them of 'strong winds', not flooding. If they had made any preparation it would have been protection against strong winds, not floods. To use your phrase Ken, 'do you not understand???' A clear, accurate warning about flooding must actually mention flooding. I would have though this was obvious Ken, Soothsaying 101.

     And of course you're right, for us it would indeed 'be easier to just say, yes, congratulations... you got it bang on, and move on', but unlike some, we don't say things that aren't true, we don't bow to intimidation, we don't fall for silly arguments, and we don't quit, especially not when you're on the winning team. As a committed atheist, and following your advice, I could send the Pope an email saying congratulations, you were right and I was wrong, clearly there is a god after all. It certainly would be easier to capitulate on all the silly beliefs out there, and I would gain more friends, albeit deluded ones. But unfortunately for you Ken, rather than toe the obedient line, I'm the sort that would say that the emperor has no clothes, and that his astrologer hasn't predicted the floods in Sydney. We're interested in the path to the truth Ken, not the easy path that you're suggesting we take, for that way ignorance lies.

651. Comment by Graham, 27 Apr, 2015

     Wow, it's like wack-a-mole isn't it? Thanks for responding.

     I'll just reiterate that he clearly didn't predict the weather system that caused the flooding, therefore it doesn't really matter what weasily words he used in the written forecast.

     He says "accepted leeway in all weather forecasting of 1-2 days" (not for legitimate forecasters it isn't). While I said the east coast low formed on the 20th, the worst rain and flooding actually occurred from the 21st to 22nd when it moved towards the coast, as you can see from the observations at RAAF Williamtown near Newcastle http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2145.latest.shtml

     So even if you think that "possible thunderstorms" in another part of NSW equals torrential rain and flooding in Sydney and the Hunter, that opinion is out by 3-4 days. Unacceptable even by Ken Ring's generous self marking system. I think that is as close as you're ever going to get to an admission from Ken that he got it wrong.

     As for Channel 7 congratulating Ken on getting it right, I suspect that is a lie. I haven't seen him on Channel 7 for years. Once people started asking who he was, he would have, or at least should have, become an embarrassment to them A Sunrise climate cock-up and reading cat’s paws.

652. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Apr, 2015

     Hi Graham. Expecting Ken to admit that he got even a single prediction wrong is like expecting Elvis Presley to start touring again. It's not going to happen. Thanks for that link: A Sunrise climate cock-up and reading cat's paws. I hadn't seen it before, and it's always enlightening to read comments by Ring attempting to defend himself, to see him reveal new nonsense and to count how many times he contradicts himself.

653. Comment by Doug, 29 Apr, 2015

     At least we are spared Yahoo having Ken Ring's odd opinions on their front page. Their new format relegates him to a backpage (you have to click on "opinion" to see his bit) and it is headed by a synopsis of his Wikipedia entry which is critical of him (but not critical enough). And Ken seems to have gone into a high dudgeon and has not updated his latest boring article for some time, and that is but a restatement of his almanac guesswork anyway. At least he states his forecasts in it and shows that his method of reusing the past records of his despised met office science-based charts is actually really unreliable. The weather of 15 or so years ago does not repeat as he claims. What amuses me is that he claims that meteorological science and measurements is flawed but then he uses it for his forecasts/opinions/guesses. He really is dishonest.

654. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 30 Apr, 2015

     Anything that lowers his shandy profile has to be a good thing Doug. He's probably busy poring over his astrological charts wondering why the word 'Nepal' didn't appear and allow him to issue a warning tweet that might have saved thousands. Another major event missed, another chance for fame lost and another strike against his beloved astrology.

655. Comment by Daryl, 07 May, 2015

     Ken, looking at some of your twitter comments:

     'Ken Ring @kenringweather · Apr 26
     Weather is patchy in NZ until a general clearing for both islands about 4 May. Then delivering Indian Summer weather for at least 3 weeks.'

     Was there a general clearing on the 4th? My recollection of my weekend was of me painting my house on a beautiful sunny day. Did you mean a general clearing of good weather? Indian summer meaning warm, dry and calm right? Have you seen the forecast for the next 10 days? Would you be prepared to admit this is wrong? It may have been warm from the fern effect on the east coast, but dry and calm? Or did I look up the wrong meaning for an Indian summer? Does it really mean: fluctuating temps with blustery/calm conditions and lots or little rain?

     'Ken Ring @kenringweather · Apr 30
     Longrange in May
     2nd: Snow central NZ, Europe prepares for drought (Britain in SW)
     6th: floods Canada
     10th: anticyclone next 2 weeks NZ:'

     There was no snow in central NZ. Not sure about the drought, any more detail around this? Floods in Canada. A quick search has revealed they have been issuing a few flood warnings since before your tweet. Today is the 7th, and I don't see an anticyclone coming anywhere near NZ for at least another 10 days.

     'Ken Ring @kenringweather · Apr 26
     Snow is likely for Desert Rd before end of this week, but is unlikely to come again until briefly last week in May, then first week July.'

     It didn't snow. Can you accept another miss here? I'll keep an eye on the rest of your opinion and let you know.

     'Ken Ring @kenringweather · May 3
     Moderately large 6mag earthquake today in NZ, NW of Wanaka.
     Today is full moon day.'

     'Ken Ring @kenringweather
     Possible moderate seismic risk 4-5 May in Peru also central NZ.
     In NZ, could be about late evening low tide times, Wairarapa to Marlborough.'

     Here you state some facts then include a tweet from 30th April about earthquake risks in Peru and central NZ. Why have you done this? The earthquake was in Wanaka, two hours before low tide in the middle of the afternoon. There was an earthquake in Peru in the time frame you mentioned, but looking at the amount of earthquakes they receive one almost every day. I am looking at a website listing recent earthquakes for the last 30 days and there have been 27 earthquakes. Is this really a 'prediction'?

     Are these opinions also stated in your almanac you wrote 2 years ago? Are there other contradictory forecasts you have written for the same time period? How come so much of what you predict turns out to be incorrect? Why won't you answer any of the questions about all the lies and scams and terrible understanding of science that are being levelled against you on this website? Have you ever admitted you have been wrong about your forecasts? Why won't you stop predicting earthquakes when you said you would?

     I have so many more questions for you Ken!! Because you claim to be able to do amazing things like predict earthquakes and weather years in advance. You trumpet your predictions in every available form of media. Your predictions are out there for public scrutiny, yet I have seen no credible evidence produced that they work. You claim an accuracy rate of over 80%, but there are so many people that say this is wrong! Why are you putting out tweets a few days or weeks in advance when you have already predicted these things years ago? To show a wider audience how wrong you are about the weather and earthquakes?

     If the moon, sun and planet cycles can be used to predict earthquakes and the weather so far in advance, how come you have been proven to be wrong so many times? Why do you not have a 100% accuracy rate? Why didn't you go on a mercy mission to warn the poor Nepalese people that their lives were about to be forever changed?

     So many questions Ken!!

656. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 May, 2015

     If you're looking for Ring's missing Indian summer weather Daryl, you probably need to look offshore, maybe even off-planet. As for Ring's predictions of Europe preparing for drought and floods in Canada, I suspect your suspicions are well founded, that our soothsayer is merely tweeting warnings after reading about them in the media.

     As for the Wanaka quake, it was mag 5.8, not 6 as Ring claims. His inability to get his facts correct is becoming legendary. And this error is important since the magnitude scale is logarithmic, meaning the energy difference between 5.8 and 6 is sizeable. People often ask why the experts quibble over a value 0.2 in magnitude. As Sean McCollum explains in his book, 'Scientific American: Volcanic Eruptions, Earthquakes, and Tsunamis':

     'When measuring earthquakes, an increase of 1 magnitude equals 10 times more ground motion. It also means a jump of about 32 in a quake's power. Therefore a magnitude 5.0 earthquake is 32 times more powerful than a 4.0 earthquake. And a 6.0 earthquake is 32 times more powerful than a 5.0. So a 6.0 magnitude earthquake is more than 1,000 times (32 x 32 = 1,024) more powerful than a 4.0 earthquake.'

     So the destructive potential between 5.8 and 6 is considerable and far more than what a measly 0.2 would suggest.

     And as you pointed out Daryl, the quake Ring predicted was for 'central NZ... Wairarapa to Marlborough', nowhere near Wanaka, and at the wrong time. So Ring's followers in central NZ would have been cowering under their tables in the late evening while those in Wanaka would have gone about their business feeling quite safe. By the end of the day both would have felt cheated that Ring had got it wrong yet again. I also thought that Ring was wrong in claiming that May 3rd was a 'full moon day', but then I realised that the quake happened on May 4th, so he couldn't have made that tweet on May 3rd, so his tweet has somehow been tagged with the wrong date. I wonder why?

657. Comment by Jamie, 08 May, 2015

     Hi John, Daryl may also want to ask Ken why he mentions 4th-5th May as being an earthquake risk time in his tweet, but when you look at his May Newsletter here...

     "May activity times: 2nd, 6th-9th, 14th-15th, 18th, 23rd-24th, 29th-30th...
     Times when the moon gains speed: 7-20 May."

     It doesn't show any risk for those dates.

     Why not?

658. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 May, 2015

     Oh well spotted Jamie. I knew Ring had completely missed predicting the Wanaka quake in his May newsletter, but failed to notice that he had predicted completely different dates in his tweet. This of course is why Ring can often produce, after the fact, predictions that were apparently spot on. He covers all his bases and every day of the month by making different predictions in different media, and no matter what happens, he simply reveals the prediction that best matches reality and hides all the failures. Let's remember that Ring once worked as a magician, so he is well versed in planting a rabbit up every sleeve and in every pocket, so no matter which you choose, you will find a rabbit. Of course finding a rabbit is not magic and pointing at a quake prediction is not divination, it's simply cheating.

     And just as magician's don't want us to look up their sleeves, Ring doesn't want us to compare his many varied predictions for the same day. It spoils the trick. Although in Ring's case it's not just a trick, it's a devious deception designed to rip people off. I have no problem with magicians fooling us, but Ring isn't doing it for our entertainment, he's doing it to separate gullible people from their money.

659. Comment by Ben, 09 May, 2015

     I hear that Ken Ring was engaged by opinion pollsters in the UK to use his predictive skills during the general election.

660. Comment by Daryl, 09 May, 2015

     Hi John, regarding Ken Ring's free article 'When and where is the next big NZ earthquake?', he states:

     'Impending larger activity will be signalled by smaller shakes every time the moon transits past at perigee.......In 2010, NZ was peppered with 5+mag earthquakes before 4 September 2010..........Before the 4 September 2010 event, in that year there had been no less than 16 above-5mag events in NZ, significant because there are on average only 2-3 above-5mag events per year.'

     Wrong, here's some of a screen shot of GeoNet's stats page (took me less than a minute to find):
     

     Perhaps he was meaning 6.0-6.9? Poor research aside, he then says 'Between 2009-11 there were over 70 above-5 earthquakes.' Huh? not according to Geonet. If you meant the 31st Dec 2009 to the 1st Jan 2011, you are still wrong, there were less than 70.

     This article of Ken's is so laden with erroneous content it is practically begging someone to tear it apart. Will you oblige? I'd love to read your response to it.

661. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 May, 2015

     You're right Daryl, you've exposed Ring once again pushing lies in a desperate attempt to support his astrological fantasy. His claim that 'there are on average only 2-3 above-5mag events per year' in NZ is obviously wrong, and clearly he is referring to quakes mag 5 and above, not mag 6.0 to 6.9. In the lead up to making this bogus claim he talks of quakes of 5+, two 5.7s and two 5.4s, and then states that 'Before the 4 September 2010 event, in that year there had been no less than 16 above-5mag events in NZ'. In all 2010 there were only 2 quakes between 6.0 and 6.9, so his '16 above-5mag events' must be almost all in the 5.0 to 5.9 range. But looking at the statistics for quakes in the 5.0 to 5.9 range, clearly it is much, much greater than 'only 2-3 above-5mag events per year' as Ring boldly asserts. In fact this other GeoNet table shows that the annual average is 50 per year, with a maximum of 127, nowhere near 2 to 3 a year as Ring claims.

     

     We've already made some comments about Ring's article, 'When and where is the next big NZ earthquake?', noting that Ring plagiarised much of his scientific sounding text that makes up his article from an old book on astrology and we exposed his tweets regarding the Christchurch quakes etc., so let's look at some different claims made by Ring in that article. We should also note that Ring continues to edit his articles and this one is on at least version 3.

     Ring also claims that 'Impending larger activity will be signalled by smaller shakes every time the moon transits past at perigee'. Note how Ring makes no effort to support this claim with evidence, because of course apart from his silly astrological beliefs, there is no evidence for this assertion. It's all a fantasy.

     Essentially Ring's goal for this article is the same as all his others, a defence of astrology. In his opening paragraph Ring assures us that 'ancient astrology mapped in detail how all phenomena including earthquakes were regulated by planetary movements... perhaps we should take a fresh look at an old theory'. Of course further into his article he implies that he won't be providing any real evidence to support his beloved astrology, since evidently 'Astrology, along with most other sciences cannot be proven'.

     Of course any intelligent, informed person should immediately be surprised by these claims by Ring. How could ancient astrologers have 'mapped in detail' the relationship of earthquakes with 'planetary movements' when they didn't even know that the planets went around the Sun (which they also called a planet), and not the Earth? And who but a fool would argue that sciences like physics, biology, chemistry and astronomy are in the same league as astrology and can't 'prove' or support their claims? Certainly astrology has not been proven, and in this respect is no different to the likes of witchcraft, alchemy or religion, but no one is fooled by Ring's silly belief that astrology is a science.

     Ring's article is just him repeating over and over again that earthquakes will happen when heavenly bodies are in specific places in the sky. And using his astrology programs he claims he can warn us of when to duck and cover by providing forecasts, or in the terminology of his field, horoscopes. Remember that we've noted that a horoscope is simply 'An astrological forecast... based on a diagram of the aspect of the planets and stars at a given moment'.

     Ring's article is basically him linking what he argues are good predictors of quakes to major quakes that have actually happened (maybe). But surely linking earthquake predictors with actual earthquakes would be going someway to proving that his astrological predictions actually work, and yet Ring continually reminds us that 'Astrology... cannot be proven'. Ring is quite wrong in saying that astrology cannot be proven. If its claims were correct then theoretically it could be proven true, what Ring should be saying is that astrology has not been proven, and no one, least of all him, is making any effort to change that. And I would add that there is considerable evidence to suggest that it is nothing but superstitious nonsense. But ignoring this negative evidence, for years Ring has been telling us to be wary of full moons and new moons, then perigees were added to the mix, then high tides and low tides became worrisome, then planetary alignments and eclipses were seen as a real threat, and then... well you get the idea, there are evidently a lot of things we need to be aware of as predictors of major earthquakes.

     The problem for Ring is that he has failed to furnish believable evidence that, as he claims, 'Earthquakes cluster more around full moon times' and 'perigees always bring increased earthquake activity' etc. Even we have produced evidence that this is not the case at all. (See our blog post — Ken Ring and earthquake clusters). Furthermore we have shown that Ring has so many risk factors that there probably is no day in any month that doesn't fall under one of Ring's warnings. (See our blog post — Ken Ring's earthquake blanket). Ring has said that 'Big earthquakes usually happen around new moons and full moons, and a week either side', so that's pretty much the whole month of every year covered, so no matter when a quake happens, the Moon or the Sun or some planet will be somewhere in the sky and will, according to Ring, have caused it. End of story. If only it were that easy.

     In May 2014 Ring only listed 13 'Earthquake Indicators' in his newsletter, his May 2015 newsletter now lists 21. Since this all evidently comes from the 'ancient astrology' that Ring tells us had 'mapped in detail how all phenomena including earthquakes were regulated', I don't understand why his list has suddenly gone from 13 to 21. A longer list suggests that Ring has recently discovered new indicators, but how could this be possible if they've been known by astrologers like him since ancient times?

     So here's the list that Ring now gives out freely to all (and there are indicators that Ring mentions elsewhere, such as apogee, that he has excluded from this list for some reason):

     'Earthquake Indicators

     Keep half an eye out for combinations of:

     Moon

     • Perigees, the closer the more dangerous, April strong, May weak perigees.
     • Highest tides (king) of the month
     • Alignments featuring Sun, Earth, Mercury, Mars, Venus, Moon, Jupiter
     • Low and high tide times on days planets combine
     • At or near the times of eclipses and new and full-Moon days;
     • Time of occurrence is generally between midnight and sunrise or midday and sunset;
     • When planets, especially the major ones, occupy either mutual quadrants, trines or are in mutual conjunction or opposition;
     • The ascendant, the 4th, the 7th, the 8th, the 12th or the 10th house at the place of the occurrence will be potent for activity.
     • The asterism of the day may belong to prithvi (earth) or vayu (air) category; and
     • When Moon and Mercury will be in close conjunction or in the same constellation.

     Sun

     • Solar activity, high sunspot count (100+)
     • Solar wind (500km/sec+)
     • Eclipse times

     Observations

     • Rapid barometer and altimeter changes, rising / falling (by over 12mbs in a day)
     • Birds becoming suddenly silent
     • Animals stressed until they achieve open ground
     • Pets missing
     • Insects unusually swarming
     • Strandings of marine mammals.
     • Cirrus clouds and high vapour trails
     • Fish on the sea floor, animals sitting down in large groups.

     All the above should not be regarded singly, but are earthquake signals when several factors occur together, e.g. around the date of an eclipse plus strange animal behaviour plus cirrus clouds.'

     I've heard of keeping an eye out for things, but what does 'Keep half an eye out' mean? To me it suggests we shouldn't take his advice all that seriously. And I don't.

     The last five of the Moon indicators were taken by Ring from that old astrology book that formed much of his article, except that the author begun his list with the statement that 'A study of the available astrological literature reveals that earthquakes generally occur...'. I suspect that although Ring is fully committed to astrology, he realises that by not highlighting that his list came from 'astrological literature', then readers might assume (falsely) that it is scientific. But of course talking about 'trines' and 'the 10th house' and that 'The asterism of the day may belong to prithvi (earth) or vayu (air) category' should immediately raise red flags to any informed person and expose it all as primitive superstitious nonsense. And what normal person monitors sunspot activity and the velocity of the solar wind? His list used to say that we should look out for 'Fish hanging around the sea floor', now it says 'Fish on the sea floor, animals sitting down in large groups'. How the hell are we expected to know what the local fish are doing, and on the farm I often observed 'animals sitting down in large groups', just chewing their cud and minding their own business. And I've never understood Ring's argument that the 'Strandings of marine mammals' can be an indicator that an earthquake will soon happen, since Ring argues that it is the earthquake that stuns the marine animals and causes them to strand in the first place. If we see stranded whales then it means that the quake has already happened, so how can it be a warning? More foolish advice that Ring struggles to fully understand. The reality is that there will often be a combination of several of those indicators occurring at the same time, so you're going to be spending a lot of time off work and under the table.

     And look at how Ring deviously edits quotes. In the old astrology book that Ring is taking text from, the author wrote that:

     'Dr. Rudolph Tomaschek, a geophysicist from the University of Munich, "after checking the places of all the planets during 134 severe earthquakes" has reported what he calls, "a relationship between the positions of planets especially Uranus and earthquakes".'

     Yet in his article Ring makes Tomaschek say things he never said:

     'Dr. Rudolph Tomaschek, a geophysicist from the University of Munich, after studying 134 earthquakes has concluded that more earthquakes occur when two or more planets are in line to the earth and especially about the times of Full and/or New moon.'

     Note that Tomaschek did not say that 'more earthquakes occur when two or more planets are in line to the earth' and that he made no mention of 'Full and/or New moon'. However he did mention a connection between Uranus and earthquakes which Ring deletes. The book's author, an astrologer, does claim that 'It is an astrological dictum that more earthquakes occur when two or more planets are in line to the earth and especially about the times of Full Moon and New Moon', but Ring deletes the bit about it being 'an astrological dictum' and falsely attributes the quote to the geophysicist, no doubt thinking that it would be more believable if a scientist said this rather than an astrologer. Time and time again Ring demonstrates that he is more than willing to lie and falsify quotes in his attempts to pretend his fantasy has real support.

     Want more examples of Ring fudging his facts? He wrote that:

     'We might also consider that on 4 September 2010 within the same hour as our Christchurch shake, a volcano occurred in Russia at a previously dormant location, spewing rocks 6kms into the air. Also on 25 April 2015 a 4.6mag occurred in Whangarei at exactly the time Nepal got their deadly 7.9mag. At that moment the moon was directly overhead for NZ at 6pm and just clearing the horizon at Nepal'.

     Searching on the Internet, I can find no evidence that any volcano in Russia, 'previously dormant' or otherwise, suddenly erupted on 4 September 2010, 'spewing rocks 6kms into the air'. Likewise I can find no evidence that there was a quake near Whangarei 'at exactly the time Nepal got their deadly 7.9mag', or before or after that time for that matter. And what would it even matter if Ring wasn't lying for once and there was a single quake (or volcanic eruption) at some remote place? If these events were caused by the Moon and intimately connected to major events elsewhere as Ring claims, then Ring needs to explain why there wasn't major earthquakes and volcanic eruptions all around the world. The Moon was 'clearing the horizon' for the entire planet, not just Nepal or Christchurch. Ring's examples of very specific disasters have the fingerprint of an evil madman with a super death ray targeting places he doesn't like, not a big dangerous, indifferent Moon hanging over us and bathing us all equally with its astrological rays but, for some strange reason, sparing nearly everyone.

     On Sep 3, 2010, the day before the first major Christchurch earthquake, Ring claims in his article that he made a comment on radio that 'over the following week significant earthquake activity could occur in the South Island'. So why did he say this, had he been consulting his astrology charts, as we would expect an astrologer to do? No, he made the radio comment, not because his astrological research had revealed upcoming quake activity, but simply because he 'had been noticing an unusual number of earthquakes clustering around the perigees and working their way down country'. Just as you or I might have. The time was ripe to make a quake prediction, and based on the recent quakes, the odds were in his favour. It's like me seeing black clouds and predicting it might rain. Ring was, by his own admission, merely looking at current events and making an educated guess.

     It's also quite revealing in the way Ring describes those quakes. He's been telling us over and over again about the clear connection between quakes and the perigee, that this is when they're likely to happen, so why would he think it 'unusual' to notice quakes 'clustering around the perigees'? In a rare moment of honesty, apparently Ring was as surprised as anyone to see this pattern. Of course in reality there was no pattern at all, quakes were not 'clustering around the perigees' like moths around a flame. Whatever pattern Ring discerned was, if I'm generous, all in his mind, or if I suspected a scam, deviously constructed by cherry picking data that matched his astrology while ignoring that which didn't.

     But forever reluctant to take Ring at his word, did he actually make the radio comment that he now relates to us? No, he didn't. He did not say that 'over the following week significant earthquake activity could occur in the South Island'. Here is the vague, all encompassing prediction that Ring actually made on radio:

     'you'll be reading about floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so, particularly the South Island ..and this time next week things will start to ease off and we'll get the aftermath'.

     Note that Ring didn't just say 'earthquake', he said 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow'. Earthquakes were third on his list, and what happened to the floods, winds and snow? He didn't say that they would be of disaster proportions. He didn't say 'significant earthquakes', he just said 'earthquakes', which are happening all the time. He didn't say 'in the South Island', he said 'particularly the South Island', which also includes the North Island. He didn't say that a disastrous earthquake would strike Canterbury the very next day, he merely said that all of NZ, and particularly the South Island, would get 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so'. I repeat, he did say that floods, winds and snow would hit as well over the next couple of weeks. They didn't. We must assume they were also to be of disaster proportion since his disaster earthquake prediction was among them. Like psychics, he made lots of vague statements — 'floods and winds and earthquakes and snow' — 'particularly the South Island' — 'over the next week or so' — and now he cherry picks an event that did happen while burying the majority that didn't. And contrary to this prediction (and many more afterwards), the Canterbury quakes did not start to ease off the following week, they got worse. So wrong again.

     Let's finish by recalling that Ring began his article by proclaiming that '5000 years of Hindu writing describe how studying lunations and eclipses, both solar and lunar can predict earthquakes. Could they have been possibly wrong for so long?' umm... let me think... yes! Do we need to remind Ring that no one, not him nor any of those Asian astrologers, predicted the deadly 7.8 earthquake that struck Nepal on Apr 25, 2015? If a prediction method can't foresee a quake of such magnitude, then maybe we should forget about the astrologers and start up a dialogue with the witches? Give them a chance to show what they can do.

     So when and where is the next big NZ earthquake? Trust me when I say that Ken Ring no more knows than does my cat.

662. Comment by Daryl, 11 May, 2015

     Hi John, reading Ken's comments about how he 'predicted' floods with warnings of a chance of thunderstorms in Sydney this April, here's a little gem I found on Ken's twitter site.....

     'Ken Ring @kenringweather · Mar 24
     Dry spell looming up for Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, and Adelaide. No significant amounts of rain between now and the second half of May.'

     Any comment on this one Ken?
663. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 May, 2015

     Lies and deceit, these are the tools of the charlatan, and Ring uses them with great abandon. There was so much rain that houses floated away and people drowned, and yet as you've discovered Daryl, Ring had confidently predicted that there would be 'No significant amounts of rain'. When his miserable failure was highlighted above (#644), he even had the arrogance to insinuate that it was us that were lying: 'So now you are claiming that I missed the recent NSW severe weather?' Yes Ken we are, and your own words condemn you. Clearly any integrity that Ring might have once had has long deserted him. Now it's all about lies, deceit, insults and intimidation to protect his scam and its income stream.

664. Comment by Ken Ring, 13 May, 2015

     Oh, good to see the usual persecute-Ken-Ring train is still at full steam here!!

     I know that there are readers to this forum who do not buy into all the misquotes and misinterpretations of my work, and who consider, with some concern for his own mental health that "John"s personal war against me is his own debilitating and time-consuming fetish. Nevertheless they stay tuned because it is somewhat amusing to witness a fanatic with verbal diarrhoea banging his head against an endless wall. It is quite clear from style that "Daryl", "Ron" and others, are added posts in order to give an impression of public support.

     Well, just for the record, "Daryl" initially presented himself to me via email, in the guise of being a genuine enquirer about my work. Some content of my replies predictably appeared immediately here! The following was my reply to "Daryl"'s latest email and which I also expected to appear eagerly here. I notice it did not, perhaps because it gives explanation to my side of my story.

     So I add it below

     Hi Daryl

     My work is peer-tested and peer-reviewed, but not by those who are not my peers. Obviously that would be stupid. It would be like asking a National MP what he thought of a Labour initiative. My peers include state-salaried meteorologists and geologists who are handsomely paid to not forecast ahead and to not predict earthquakes. That is the status quo that we all live under. My peers are farmers, fishermen, the media that support and promote my work, those who study and mention my work in other countries, those who use the work here and understand it, and not those who have not bothered to try to understand it. My peers are the wheat, cotton and grain farmers who attend my seminars and make their profits by hedging in commodities based on what I advise. I am certainly not interested in submitting research papers to science websites and magazines who refuse to print anything from me (as I have been flatly told). I have offered to share my findings and method for free with NIWA twice, in order that the method might be tested in a fair and proper atmosphere and twice did not even receive the courtesy of a reply.

     Anyone can, if they wish, do an analysis of my work allowing for my 80-85% claim of accuracy and leeway of 1-3 days and 50-80kms radius of both applicability and error margin. But inexact sciences like medicine, geology, economics and weather forecasting cannot be replicated in test tubes. Inexact sciences are not empirical sciences. The result is in the eye of the biased beholder. For those looking for results, they may find enough to keep them interested. Fortunately, seventeen years of almanacs later, enough of those types of people are still finding the almanacs worthwhile, over 5000 joined my twitter account and 11,000 subscribe to receive my monthly newsletters. I would not call all of that a lack of support.

     Consequently I do not write for sceptics, shin-kickers and cyber-bullies because they are a waste of time dealing with. They endlessly feed their own egos with their righteous moral high ground. They seem to think that freedom of expression means they are free to act as bullies. I do not attack them, but in attacking me they are actually abusing free speech. No armchair cynic ever contributed to world science, advanced knowledge that could save lives, pursued new frontiers or reduced poverty. I only write for those who request information from me. Hence I am not, as you seem to think, anxious for the "scientific world", whatever that may be, to accept my ideas. I actually hope they leave me alone.

     You say critics have used science to negate me, whilst I have not used science in my methods. What do you think science is? Why do you think the moon, sun, planets, orbits, patterns and cycles are not science? What do you think they are part of? And how would/could someone actually construct a test in science of anything to do with weather? I am science trained at two universities, although I qualified finally in another field. But I consider that I do know what science as scientists define it is and what its limits are, and I consider that I am aware of the limitations of it but also how I can make contributions that might better serve mankind.

     I have no time, nor inclination to, as you assume I must, endlessly try to justify what we do, any more than a doctor does in the neighbourhood of his practice. People come to us because they believe we can help them. They come back for more in a later session. That's all we ask of the work. I am perfectly free to hold my opinion and to perform in our business. We are not ripping anyone off — they come to us for an opinion and they are prepared to pay for the research time my team and I put in to give them an answer or a report. That is what happens in the trading world. We supply no less than what is clearly laid out on the website. Others are perfectly free to avoid our business if that is their choice. So take the work of leave it. Our maps are well in accordance with what the metservice put out.

     Here is today's good example:

     Australian metservice for today

     http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_bw.shtml

     

     Compare that to our map for today from our subscribers' store

     http://www.predictweather.co.nz/Details.aspx?id=376

     Free to subscribers. It looks like even the shapes of the fronts are equivalent.

     It may be noted that our map was worked out over a year ago, but that of the metservice only over the past 12 hours.

     

     But no doubt one will find fault if one is looking for it. Others might say it is a near-perfect match.

     ---

     There the letter ended.

     But to update, here is today's BoM map, showing the cold southerly flow coming up from the south

     (near "1004"), from the next low pressure system to soon come across NZ.

     

     And here is our map of 15 May, prepared a year ago, showing that system by then over us.

     1-3 days leeway is an acceptable error.

     

     It is just further example of the method, and how people can prepare for what is coming — in this case

     Perhaps getting firewood ready and making sure children are dressed up warmly if they are away on trips etc..

     Of course we don't get all the forecasts right, but the method consists of arriving at the maps first, and interpreting from them.

     And mostly our maps from over a year away are accurate enough to be useful because we enable time to prepare.

665. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 May, 2015

     Ken, once again you state that you have your supporters reporting to you that we're misrepresenting your position, and yet none are brave enough to challenge us, they merely run to you with their tales of woe. Even though we have accused you, their master, of ignorance, deceit, lies and of running a scam, they say nothing to us. Are your befuddled followers afraid that we will send a curse down the phone lines if they engage with us, or are they simply too spineless to defend you? Apparently, according to you, they are willing for us to destroy your reputation as long as they gain some amusement from it. Their fleeting amusement is more important to them than defending you, which I think is quite revealing.

     Of course we realise that your typical supporter might not have the intellectual skills to debate your method or... well... anything... but why do you likewise never challenge us when we say you're wrong or that you have lied? We accuse you of lying and ask for evidence of your claim, and you just go quiet or move on to something else. You make (false) claims about us and yet you won't defend your accusations, you just slink away. Why won't you stand behind your claims Ken? Is it because even you know that you can't defend lies?

     As you've done in the past, you again appear to be implying that we make up posts to discredit you, saying that 'It is quite clear from style that "Daryl", "Ron" and others, are added posts in order to give an impression of public support'. Believe me when I say Ken that it's more than just us that aren't fans of your business of spreading superstitious nonsense. I'm sorry to break this to you Ken, but there are "others" out there, you'd be depressed to know how many, that are willing, unlike your spineless supporters that read our comments, to post the reasons that they think you're pushing a scam. We don't have to invent posts to show that you're promoting bullshit.

     You say Ken that Daryl wrote to you 'in the guise of being a genuine enquirer about my work', which I'm sure he was. He would have genuinely wanted to know why you won't produce the data that you say proves your method works, the data that produces your infamous '80-85% claim of accuracy'. He may have genuinely inquired (as he has on this website), as to why 'you fail to successfully rebut questions about the many embarrassing mistakes, cover-ups and denials you have made over the years'? I think Ken you confuse 'a genuine enquirer' with a mindless sycophant. Like North Korea's Great Leader, you welcome, and expect, adulation, and you immediately throw a temper tantrum when some genuinely curious individual innocently asks you an embarrassing question, screaming, "Remove that fascist bullying shin-kicker from my sight and contact my lawyers". You encourage people to email you Ken, but apparently you only want praise and heartfelt thanks, and the only genuine inquiries you'll tolerate are those asking where they can buy your books or make a donation.

     We dispute your claim that your work 'is peer-tested and peer-reviewed, but not by those who are not my peers. Obviously that would be stupid. It would be like asking a National MP what he thought of a Labour initiative'. For a start, reporters ask MP's opinions of their opponents initiatives all the time, that is a form of peer review. Your example couldn't be more wrong, showing that you have a poor grasp of what peer review is. As Wikipedia notes, 'Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work'.

     You then claim that your peers include 'meteorologists and geologists'. Is this a typo on your part, since it completely contradicts a claim you made in the past: 'My peers are not meteorologists, nor scientists, nor anybody university trained... None of the aforementioned know anything about weather'. I suspect you mistakenly embraced meteorologists and geologists as peers, because you then go on to tell us that 'My peers are farmers, fishermen, the media that support and promote my work, those who study and mention my work in other countries, those who use the work here and understand it, and not those who have not bothered to try to understand it'. But farmers, fishermen and the media are clearly not your peers since they don't evaluate your work and they don't have a 'similar competence to the producers of the work', that is they know nothing about astrological weather and earthquake prediction. They are simply the end users of your work, they are not your peers. Just because I use a microwave oven, that doesn't make me a peer to the scientist that invented it. You falsely claim that 'those who study and mention my work' are your peers, but we've studied and mentioned your work Ken, so that means we're your peers! And on those grounds, our peer testing and peer reviewing of your work shows that it is complete nonsense. Your deluded view of peer review is simply someone that supports and promotes your work, which clearly isn't what it means at all. Your fan group are not your peers and their naïve adulation is not peer review. Your claim is as silly as if the pope claimed that he was conducting peer review when some believer kisses his hand.

     Suggesting that you do indeed know what true scientific peer review means, you mention that you're 'certainly not interested in submitting research papers to science websites and magazines who refuse to print anything from me (as I have been flatly told)'. If you're 'not interested in submitting research papers', and haven't submitted any in the past, then how do you know that they'd be refused? Oh... of course... the astrology nonsense. You also say that, 'I have offered to share my findings and method for free with NIWA twice', but I doubt this as I've seen you on several occasions threaten people with legal action if they use data from your old almanacs to analyse your success rate.

     You go on to say that 'Anyone can, if they wish, do an analysis of my work', and many have Ken, including us, and we've all found your work to be a sham based on primitive, superstitious nonsense with an accuracy far less than just guessing. But even in this claim of yours you contradict yourself, saying that analysis done by anyone can clearly demonstrate your '80-85% claim of accuracy', but then you imply that this result will likely not be obtained, since your work 'cannot be replicated in test tubes. Inexact sciences are not empirical sciences'. You also ask, 'how would/could someone actually construct a test in science of anything to do with weather?' For the trillion time Ken, astrology, like witchcraft and alchemy, is not a science, inexact or otherwise. Please try and drag yourself from the Middle Ages. Furthermore, even your silly astrology can be empirically tested. If you predict that it will be fine and dry in Sydney or Wellington and they actually have severe floods (as indeed has happened), then you are wrong and your method has failed miserably. Your method has been tested. It's child's play and there's nothing inexact about it. An astrological prediction either comes true or it doesn't, so the accuracy of your weather and earthquake horoscopes can, as you say, be analysed and tested. And they have been, and I'm sorry, but we've decided to go with the witches for future forecasts.

     To pretend that you know what you're talking about, you also regurgitate another of your old lies: 'I am science trained at two universities, although I qualified finally in another field'. Failing to qualify in science at university, switching to the arts and then dropping out without gaining any qualification is not what it means to be 'science trained at two universities'. You are being deliberately duplicitous with your implication that you have a tertiary qualification. No doubt you are still smarting over your 2011 interview on TV3's 'Campbell Live' when John Campbell requested clarification about your science training:

     John Campbell: 'What is your tertiary education in the area of science Mr Ring, what is your qualification?'
     Ken Ring: 'What has that got to do with what I'm doing now, there is not a university chair in what I'm talking about'.
     John Campbell: 'Could you answer my question please Mr Ring... or I'll just assume you don't have a qualification'.
     Ken Ring: 'John, what qualification does Richie McCall have to be captain of the All Blacks... '

     So clearly, no science qualification whatsoever. And over the years when queried about your university training you have clearly told lies. In 2000 you said that you 'took psychology and anthropology at university', but when asked in 2011 your story changed, and you then said that you took 'physics, chemistry and zoology for a science degree before I switched to arts'. When you've said how long you spent at university, you've given the answer of 9 years, a bit under 5 years in another answer, and just 3 years in yet another. With no tertiary qualification whatsoever you have on several occasions claimed to be a scientist, a mathematician and a psychologist, all careers for which you lack the necessary qualifications. Only a con man pretends to be something he is not.

     That TV interview also now reveals another contradiction on your part Ken. When berating Daryl you argued that the 'fact' that you were 'science trained at two universities' was important to your work, and yet in your TV interview you argued just the opposite, that your lack of a university education was irrelevant to your work. More lies Ken, your stories effortlessly flip-flop depending on who you're talking to. And on reviewing your TV3 interview and the many lies you told, I came across another you gave on TV1's 'Close Up' near the same time, and was again astounded at the many different lies you told there too. While both interviewers suspected your lies, unfortunately, probably not expecting you to continue to lie when confronted, neither were prepared with the evidence and thus didn't go on to expose your deception. I suspect that because people expect you to be generally honest, they enter into debate with you ill-prepared. For example, viewers were shown video of you issuing an earthquake warning, and when asked about that warning, you denied that you had ever said it, saying you were misquoted. It takes a monumental liar with great confidence and arrogance to boldly insist that they never said something when we've all just watched them say it. You are so skilled at lying Ken that people start to question their own memories, and of course you say so many ridiculous things that when you later deny ever having said them, people give you the benefit of the doubt, thinking that must have been misinformed, since no one could have actually said something so stupid.

     And strangely, while desperately wanting to be seen as doing science, you say, 'I am not... anxious for the "scientific world"... to accept my ideas. I actually hope they leave me alone'. Your tearful plea to be left alone simply raises another contradiction, since you have argued often for the 'scientific world' to take your ideas seriously. You've said that regarding 'ancient astrology... perhaps we should take a fresh look at an old theory'. You've said that 'It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to', and you've insisted that 'If only modern scientists could keep their minds open, the accumulated wisdom of astrology could prove to be of great assistance'. And yet now you claim that you don't want the scientific world to accept your ideas! Apparently you'll say anything, flatly contradicting what you've said previously, whatever it takes to silence an opponent. You're not winning the debate Ken, you're just making yourself look like a real fool.

     And if Ken, you're truly not anxious for the "scientific world" to accept your ideas, how then do you hope to fulfil your saintly mission where you seriously believe you 'can make contributions that might better serve mankind'? In the past you've been arrogant enough to liken yourself to Galileo, Jesus and Mother Teresa, and now here you are again under the delusion that you're somehow making 'contributions that might better serve mankind'. Do you seriously think that your silly beliefs will gain wide acceptance and save untold lives by you shunning the scientific world? Are you really that stupid to reject the support of science, or is it that you just don't want science to expose your scam?

     And you once again naively judge the accuracy of your method as the number that buy your almanac or subscribe to your newsletter, childishly arguing that, 'I would not call all of that a lack of support'. But far, far more people regularly buy horoscope books each year, along with the Bible and Koran, all books that we both agree Ken are absolute rubbish, so continuing support by shallow-minded believers clearly means that idiots will buy almost anything. Think about it Ken, thousands more write to Santa Claus than you, does that mean we should take belief in Santa seriously, just because he has some gullible supporters?

     You admit Ken that,

     'I have no time, nor inclination to... endlessly try to justify what we do, any more than a doctor does... People come to us because they believe we can help them. They come back for more in a later session. That's all we ask of the work. I am perfectly free to hold my opinion...'

     But a doctor does justify what he does by his tertiary qualifications, by ongoing clinical trials and medical research and by actually healing people. If a 'doctor' was to refuse to justify his reasons for suggesting a certain treatment, was to hide whether he had any medical training, and harmed more than he healed, then he would soon lose support. Silly people go to churches and psychic mediums because they believe priests and psychics can help them, and they go back for further sessions. And that's all the priests and psychics ask, that the fools keep coming back. That some fools also go to an astrologer because they believe he can help them is just another example that, even in the 21st century, most people are still profoundly superstitious.

     You say Ken that 'I am perfectly free to hold my opinion'. Indeed you are, as are we. And our opinion is that your comments are merely lies and deception designed to silence any analysis of your bogus method. And like your website, people 'come to us for an opinion', the main difference being that our opinion embraces reason and science whereas yours shuns it. And ours is free.

     As for your first two weather maps, they are similar but they clearly aren't 'a near-perfect match'. And it is misleading for you to state that 'our map was worked out over a year ago'. You've freely admitted elsewhere that all the maps you reproduce are not your work at all, they are merely old maps that you've purchased from the likes of BoM. As for your second two weather maps, they aren't even for the same day, so not a real comparison. Your map is for two days later. Why didn't you provide the correct map? I'm guessing that it didn't match the BoM map? And three times you highlight that your predictions are made 'from over a year away', which allows people to 'prepare for what is coming... Perhaps getting firewood ready and making sure children are dressed up warmly'. Do your really think people consult your almanac a year out to see what the weather might be on a certain day a year later, and lay out some warm clothing in preparation? The handful of people tempted to consult your almanac no doubt do so very close to the time, not from a year away, and then they realise that they might be better to listen to real-time weather predictions from meteorologists that are watching real weather as it develops. Unlike astrologers, meteorologists will improve and change their forecasts if need be, with no fear that they need consider that Pluto is passing through Sagittarius.

666. Comment by Ron, 14 May, 2015

     Hi John. I guess someone has to say it but where is the prediction, from Ken Ring, for the chaos-causing weather (torrential rain) affecting Wellington and the Kapiti Coast these 1-2 days, May 13 and 14, where a month's av. rain fell in a day? In fact there have been other serious rain events recently in that area.

     Again, I hark back to his May newsletter that according to him is made up of excerpts from his almanac. I quote,

     "From the 12th, settled anticyclonic conditions for the next week. Expect warm days, hardly any rain, lots of sun, little wind ANYWHERE IN NZ".

     "Rain likely lower Nth Island 1st-6th and 23rd"

     "Little or no rain expected between 10th and 20th, both islands. Most N.I. rain between 3rd and 8th. Only Invercargill wetter than average".

     Gales and heavy rain have lashed many areas so far this month. The west coast has been well and truly saturated.

     Then there is another classic failure we surely know about. Sydney. Ken's April newsletter states that the Sydney region would be a whopping 87% drier than average. The average is 135mm. The reality? According to the bureau of meteorology 366mm fell and it was the wettest April since 1989 and 7th wettest ever recorded.

     Another wee gem from his May version is Sydney region estimated 0.5% drier than average. What, only half a percent? Neither here nor there. Is he so incredibly accurate now that it's down to talking about such small changes, or is it yet another mistake?

     Quite honestly, Ring should take the Irish farmers advice and hang up his boots and retire. These failures, and they never stop, are an appalling abomination. None of his methods work, not even close. It is sickening that in this country he can continue to take money for such useless, worthless garbage and get away with it, and also have the gall to threaten litigation. Give up Ken. Enjoy a retirement with some useful health promoting activities. Just think of blissful freedom from criticism at long last. You are a scrapper and love indulging so withdrawal symptoms will be severe, but it will pass. How, Ken, are you going to wriggle out of the Wellington failure, how will you attempt to talk your way out? You cannot really. Just heard another day of rain still to come for the region.

     A number of us are now waiting for answers to sensible questions from him but don't hold your breath. A recent series of replies from Ring on Silly Beliefs intrigued me especially after telling me he does not write to this site as he "does not engage with fascists". Perhaps it was to ease the pent up urge by releasing some more insults, sarcasm, abuse and insinuations. This is not nit-picking about where you place your commas, full stops etc Ken. These are serious failures. You are answerable, are you not?

     For the umpteenth time, you are running a business providing information for monetary reward.

667. Comment by Jamie, 14 May, 2015

     Hi John, after hearing about the severe weather currently affecting the Wellington region, I went searching on Ken's twitter feed for any advance warning of this event.

     Not surprisingly, there was nothing. In fact he said the North Island would be dry this week.

     Tweet on 7th May:

     "In NZ, rain North Island clearing after this weekend, then mostly dry until 21st of May. Canterbury dry rest of May."

     We've also had rain here in Canterbury over the last few days, with more forecast in the short term.

     Ken, I'd call that a fail.

     I also found this amusing...

     http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=514&type=home

     "The BOM (Bureau of Meteorology-Australia's weather service) is saying now that there is a 70% chance of El Nino developing in 2015, and that it could be full blown by mid May....The BoM was saying the same last year, namely that in 2014 there was a 70% chance of El Nino occurring that year, and yet it failed to eventuate. Again it was a case of a climate model failing to deliver accurate predictions."

     Any mathematician worth his salt should recognise a probability when he sees one, and should understand that saying there's a 70% chance of something happening, is also saying there's a 30% chance of it not happening.

     He also goes on to say...

     "Sooner or later, if some scientist keeps saying something year after year, it will occur and then their method will be hailed as a great breakthrough."

     I love the irony there Ken. Beautiful.

     (is he taking the piss or what??)

668. Comment by Jamie, 15 May, 2015

     Hi again John. Since I sent my last email, Ken has added this tweet:

     May 14th:
     "Perigees bring extremes. Perigee is tomorrow. NZ Metservice issued the warning for Wellington only this morning."

     So did Ken not realise beforehand that there was a perigee on the 15th? He didn't forecast this extreme weather. Perhaps he forgot about the perigee?

     I see that the forecast for today for Greymouth is "Fine with Southerlies - high of 16 deg". Is Greymouth not affected by the perigee?

     What about Apia, Samoa? The forecast for today is Fine with a high of 28 deg. There's also a huge High over South Australia right now. Why? The moon seems to be picking on poor old Wellington.

     More questions to add to Daryl's list!

     Also Ken, let me remind you that the definition of "Forecast" is "predict or estimate (a future event or trend)."

     I repeat: "A Future event".

     Perhaps you should change your title to — "Short Range Weather Horoscope Hindsighter".

669. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 May, 2015

     Thankyou Ron and Jamie for documenting Ring's most recent embarrassing forecasting failure. Why is it I wonder that his mystical astrological soothsaying powers have deserted him? Hopefully Ring doesn't own any goats or else one might be getting sacrificed in an attempt to appease the gods.

     And look at his attempt at diversion, saying in his tweet that 'NZ Metservice issued the warning for Wellington only this morning'. This is Ring saying that even the MetService didn't see it coming, so why do people insist that he should have? Oh that's just so unfair, pick on the poor astrologer! But this is Ring's raison d'être, his reason for existing, his vocal insistence that his astrological method can accurately forecast weather events that conventional meteorology can't. We all know that the MetService is nowhere near as prophetic as Ring claims to be, and nor do they claim to be. Comparing MetService methodology with Ring's is like comparing apples with oranges, or science with witchcraft. It's irrelevant to Ring's case as to whether the MetService botched a forecast or not. The question for Ring is why was he totally oblivious to the coming severe weather, since it must have been long written in the heavens.

     If Ring's forecasts, that we have to pay for, are demonstrably no better than the free and easily accessed and understood MetService ones (and Ring's are arguably much, much worse), then who but a fool would opt to keep handing money over to Ring? Of course I'm sure that Ring will soon surface with a vague quote that he made some years ago in 'Astrological Monthly' or at some Alternative History conference where he hinted of a heavy dew a week later, some 80 kms from where the extreme flooding occurred, and Ring will feel vindicated. He had predicted it after all.

670. Comment by Daryl, 16 May, 2015

     Hi John, ol Kenny eh!

     "Ken", I am a real person, it's Daryl, not "Daryl". Thanks for posting my correspondence, here's the first exchanges:

     Hi Ken, The attached tweet appears to wildy at odds with the weather forecast. The majority of the rain will have cleared the North Island by lunch tommorow and another two lows appear to be approching the north isalnd Monday/Tuesday, followed by Wed/thur/fri. It looks like a reasonable amount of rainfall for the north island. Any comments around this?

     Ken Ring @kenringweather · 22h 22 hours ago [May 7]
     In NZ, rain North Island clearing after this weekend, then mostly dry until 21st of May. Canterbury dry rest of May.

     Does this look like the guise of a genuine enquirer?

     Here's your reply:

     Hi Daryl
     I agree, it does seem that my tweet is at odds with the others. But I am the only longrange forecaster around and the metservice constantly remind us that they cannot go more than 2-3 days ahead. So what authority do they give themselves to declare for a week or a month ahead, or 3 months as NIWA does, I.e. what models do they use now that means they can go further than the 2-3 days? Has something radically changed, and does that mean that when they say no one (meaning me) can go further than 2-3 days ahead and at the most, 6, days that they were misleading the public before or misleading the public now? It cannot be both ways!

     I say it as I see it. Yes I think there will be odd showers over the bulk of May and some will get more than others because of all the microclimates in a country such as ours, but the trends as I calculate them are for overall dryness for May after this weekend. In fact next week is looking rather anticyclonic in my maps, and also those from the NOAA

     As I claim only 80-85% accuracy, same as all other forecast services, which means 2 months of the year may be awry, this may be one of my fail months, who knows. If so it does not give the lie to my method. 15% or 20% is not 100%. But I do my best with the tools at my disposal. Let’s hope there is rain, because many areas need it, but an El Nino is brewing which NIWA and Metservice seem now to agree on, which means a dry winter looms for many regions, especially in the east.

     Regards

     Ken

     I didn't reply to your long winded rant that you have posted above because all that you have said I've read before. If you repeat the lies long enough Ken, eventually you will believe them.

     You cannot predict the weather using the moon Ken, you use mutiple media sources to sprinkle various forecasts covering every eventuality. You said on Twitter it was clearing after last weekend and the North Island would be dry, it appears your newsletter and almanac also said the same thing. This turned out to be wildy incorrect as I suggested it may in my initial email. Now you have the audacity to post on twitter that it was all the perigree. Are you for real? Why will you not talk about all the failures that people are inquiring about? Answer the questions about your repeated failures. On this website alone there are dozens of examples where it has been proven you have failed miserably to predict the weather or earthquakes.

     I laughed when I read in your reply that 'this may be one of my fail months, who knows'. Well, it certainly is Ken. I would say 75% + of all of your predictions are wrong, or are covered by all encompassing blanket predictions.

671. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 16 May, 2015

     You should feel honoured Daryl, when Ring places quotation marks around your name you have joined an elite club, you have become someone who has truly irked Ken Ring, and this is his acknowledgment of your achievement. Your ability to see through the soothsayer's claims by using critical thinking and in the process to have caused Ring to waste time on grooming someone who wasn't even considering buying an almanac makes you one of a special few that Ring is now extremely wary of. Of course you'll now have a bounty on your head should you ever visit Ringworld, but from what I've heard it's a little like visiting North Korea on a bad day, so not a great loss really.

     Of course I'm not surprised that Ring has completely misrepresented your email exchange in saying that you pretended to write 'in the guise of being a genuine enquirer about my work'. He's nothing if not devious. Clearly you were questioning his forecast, not praising it. But as I said, Ring confuses 'a genuine enquirer' with a mindless sycophant. Even when I openly ask questions of Ring, I am making genuine inquires of him, I genuinely want him to respond with honest replies. Although I disagree with his claims, I'm genuinely inquiring as to why he makes the claims that he does and what evidence does he have to support them. As an atheist I likewise make genuine inquiries when Christian evangelists knock on my door. You don't have to be an obsequious believer in religion or astrological weather prediction to make genuine inquiries. This is clearly something that Ring can't grasp, and he obviously only wants committed followers to email him with questions.

     And his rant about NIWA and the MetService is again irrelevant (and confusing) and a childish attempt to divert our gaze from his failures. And frankly I'm not sure what he was trying to say. He agrees that 'it does seem' as if he's made a bogus forecast, but that's not the same as admitting that he actually has, since things are not always as they seem. He still can't bring himself to admitting a true failure. However if he has, God forbid, made a crap forecast, look at the excuse that he then offers: 'But I am the only longrange forecaster around...' That's like a surgeon saying. 'Sure I've killed a few patients through incompetence, but hey, I am the only surgeon around'. Being the only one around doesn't give you the right to make things up or an excuse to make more mistakes than if you were one of many.

     Or is Ring arguing that since others won't make long range forecasts then he is (somehow) forced to do so, even if the consequence will be that some or even many of them might be bogus? Another alternative is that Ring appears to admit that he seems to have got a forecast wrong, but then in his defence argues that the MetService have clearly stated that no one can make forecasts that far ahead, so evidently we are silly to expect his forecasts to be reliable. It's apparently our fault for taking him seriously when the MetService says it can't be done. Because let's remember that Ring is (almost) admitting that he got it wrong and using the MetService stance on long range forecasting to explain why.

     And it's been asked before, and he's consistently refused to answer, but I wish Ring would show us where mainstream forecasters claim 80-85% accuracy. I'm not saying some mention of accuracy over some time period hasn't been made, but he needs to support his claim that my nightly TV weather forecast claims 80-85% accuracy. His silence will simply confirm my suspicion that he's just made it all up.

     Also for someone that claims (falsely) to be a mathematician, Ring's understanding of what percentages mean is rather shady. Ring says, 'I claim only 80-85% accuracy... which means 2 months of the year may be awry, this may be one of my fail months, who knows'. Let's ignore that 80-85% of a year doesn't exactly leave a remainder of 2 months. So, if we were to accept that Ring's forecasts do indeed exhibit an 80-85% accuracy, does this mean, as Ring seems to think, that his forecasts for 10 months will all be completely accurate and those for the remaining 2 months will all be completely wrong? Of course not. If Ring only made 12 forecasts per year, one per month, then his explanation of a 'fail month' would make sense, but he makes many forecasts for each day, many thousands for the year. Any one of these thousands of forecasts is just as likely to be wrong as any other. There shouldn't be a very long run of successes (10 months) and then a long run of failures (2 months) as Ring expects. If Ring's claim of 80-85% accuracy were correct we should see this accuracy applying to each day's forecasts, and also the forecasts for each week, month and year. Each period — day, week, month — should show approximately an 80-85% accuracy rate. Think of a student who sat 10 exams and got an overall pass rate of 80%, and we know that the student was no better at one subject than any other. The reasonable expectation would be that she achieved a mark of around 80% in each exam, giving her an overall mark of 80%. However using Ring's logic, the student would have achieved 100% in 8 exams and 0% in the other 2 exams, again giving her an overall pass rate of 80%. Of course Ring's version of events is not realistic, the student is not likely to go from consistent genius for one exam to consistent moron for another. Likewise Ring is not going to go from perfect forecaster for 10 months to village idiot forecaster for the other 2. And yet this is what Ring thinks his 80-85% accuracy rate means, that if there are failures, then '2 months of the year may be awry'. And lest you think this is just a poorly expressed statement on Ring's part, it's not, he has put forward this same argument many times before, and fails to understand why it's flawed.

     And I had to giggle at Ring's parting excuse: 'I do my best with the tools at my disposal', although I do actually agree with Ring here. The results he's achieving probably are the best one can realistically expect when you use astrology to predict the weather and earthquakes. I mean his success rate is absolute crap, but considering the primitive and superstitious nature of the tools at his disposal, what more can you really expect from astrology? His best results are truly pathetic when compared to modern meteorology, but when compared to... say... the wait-and-see attitude that the Neanderthals evidently had to weather forecasting, it's probably not too bad.

672. Comment by Daryl, 16 May, 2015

     Hi John, thanks for your reply, excellent explanation of Ken's 80-85% success = 2 months of pure f*ck up's claim. For a "mathematician", another embarrassing failure.

     Ken, we all know you read and post here, and as John has pointed out in his previous (and probably other) post, there are many genuine questions accompanied by strong supporting evidence about failed predictions you have made. Your rebuttals are either lies, contradiction of your own words, fabrications of the truth, smokescreens or selective interpretations of your all encompassing forecasts. You have ignored many a genuine question. If you cannot prove or support your predictopinions, and someone disputes them with (f)actual evidence to be a failure or wrong , then you need to either admit to these failures, or provide strong evidence (not lies, contradiction, fabrication, smokescreens or selective interpretations) to the contrary.

     I am happy to collate a list of the many, many questions you have failed to acknowledge about your failed predictopinions. To not waste too much of your time, the list will only include unanswered questions from this year. I will simply go through the questions in this blog starting from 1st Jan 2015 you have not answered and list them for you to provide answers.

     What say you??

673. Comment by Ron, 17 May, 2015

     Hi John, no need to tell you that it appears that in the interest of improved service from Ken Ring we are to receive 2 newsletters per month. Oh, happy days. Not much change from earlier version except more generalized with various percentages and dates removed. Plus we get half of next month. 2 things stand out though that annoy me. Right at the start, to really rub it in, he is pushing another bloody seminar in Melbourne that costs a mere $500 on its own On top of this he will get his $5000 plus speaking fee and all other costs met. No wonder he is slow to retire. As I've said before, it is sickening. How many suckers truly attend that farce to listen to him waffle on about methods that simply DO NOT work. Emotive stuff no doubt helps drag in more fools so they believe by attending they will be saved and never suffer any losses or setbacks. Do any NZ farmers actually go to these. Tonight , on a walk, my frustration had me feverishly trying to think how I can reach these future fools parting with their money, to get them to read Silly Beliefs or similar, to learn about this man and his business with his shocking, abysmal track record. Why are we not seeing more farmers writing in vilifying Ring, demanding their money back. Perhaps embarrassment at a foolish decision in hindsight keeps them mum and counting their losses.

     Second anger promoter. His section on quakes. Crowing like a stuck record, the same old stuff. Rattling on about the May perigee after the event re. all the quakes. He has the cheek to quote the second Nepal killer quake, 7.4 close to perigee. I notice he kept quiet about the devastating 7.8 on April 25 which was 9 days after the perigee of the 16th. Also latches onto tornadoes ie Texas, Mt Maunganui. You have asked him in the past, what about all the big, small and medium quakes that occur at all other times well outside perigees, but like a bloody parrot he keeps quoting Napier and Christchurch. The great mag 9 Japan quake also long way from perigee. Ken quoting USA tornadoes to bolster his moon theories, what a joke. At least 1200 tornadoes strike the USA annually affecting mainly about 6 states in an approx. 2 month period of late spring and early summer. So, do these 1200 twisters cause mind blowing destruction and loss of life on a hand full of days on each of the 2 mths around moon perigee? I do not think so.

     He should ask some Texans or Oklahomans. Ever feel like you're up against a brick wall?

674. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 May, 2015

     Hi Ron. Actually I hadn't noticed that Ring was now supplying a mid-month newsletter. To let it through, and provide us with a few laughs, I've had to bribe my spam checker to turn a blind eye to yet more bullshit.

     But I had noticed that Ring is again advertising his expensive astrology seminar. There were comments made back in January prior to his first seminar, exposing misleading claims made by Ring. So while Ring now knows his advertising claims are false and misleading, I note that he hasn't made any attempt to change them. However his blurb does now acknowledge that his co-presenter David Burton uses astrology to make his predictions, noting that Burton 'explains the financial astrology cycles' and that he writes 'on financial astrology'. Ring however remains safely in the closet, not brave enough to reveal his use of astrology.

     It would be nice to think that not many fools, if any, would be silly enough to throw away so much money on an expensive seminar run by two astrologers, but of course we would be the fools if we believed that were the case. The fact that it is being run again means Ring and Burton made a decent profit from the first seminar. The sad reality is that there is no shortage of fools prepared to give charlatans money for nonsense. Look at the numbers that flock to the tours and workshops of travelling psychics, that give to their church every week, that buy worthless homeopathy potions from their pharmacies, and that attend conferences on the likes of UFOs, Bigfoot and astral projection. From personal experience, I've noticed that when someone advertises a local talk on the likes of UFO abduction, ghost hunting or God's plan for the world, a good number of believers always turn up, but skeptical talks receive little support. And it's not just Ring that is promoting silly beliefs, and that needs to be exposed. I notice that psychic medium Kelvin Cruickshank, made famous by TV's 'Sensing Murder', has just released his fourth book on how this talking to the dead stuff works. It's surprising in this modern age that people like Cruickshank and Ring still have followers, that they can even sell a single book or run a single seminar, but depressingly they are successful and this reveals that many people are still profoundly superstitious. While one would think that an honest, critical look at the evidence would soon turn people against the likes of Ring and Cruickshank, if it were this simple then belief in gods would have disappeared too. The reality is that society will always have fools, and we can't keep them from the likes of Ring. We can perhaps reach some folk that are simply ill-informed, but the fools forever belong to Ring.

     You ask Ron, 'Why are we not seeing more farmers writing in vilifying Ring, demanding their money back. Perhaps embarrassment at a foolish decision in hindsight keeps them mum and counting their losses'. I suspect that most farmers don't care about, or even know much about, Ken Ring. They don't complain about Ring anymore than they complain about witches suggesting that farmers use magic. I doubt that Ring has anywhere near the support from farmers that he claims to have. He lies about everything, why should this be any different? Also with Internet forums, embarrassed farmers (if they exist) could easily criticise Ring anonymously, but even this doesn't happen. And before Ring writes in arguing that his many farmer clients don't complain because they are very happy with his work, we must remember that not only do farmers not complain, they don't write in offering support for Ring either. Farmers are silent because for them Ring's predictions are, like cattle mutilation by aliens, a non-issue.

     I notice too that Ring is now advertising some his books that have nothing to do with his prediction business, such as 'Supertramp, the Story of Bruce' and 'How To Get Your Kid To Like Maths', and yet strangely there is no mention of 'Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws', the book for which Ring is famous, and no mention of his similar book, 'How Your Cat Chose You'. Is he ashamed of those two books?

     As for Ring rabbiting on about the dangers of the perigee, his cherry picking of disasters is indeed just a joke, but it is surprising how a dull mind can fall for silly arguments like this. It's as ridiculous as me saying, have you noticed that there is often a disaster somewhere in the world when 'Coronation Street' screens on TV, plus or minus 3 days? And of course I could provide a long list of disasters that 'show' that 'Coronation Street' does indeed seem to be causing mayhem. Perhaps Ring should be factoring this into his horoscopes?

     Ring's latest website article expounds on all this perigee nonsense, yet even his opening definition is confusing:

     'What is a perigee? When any two bodies in space orbit each other they are never equidistant. There is a closer orbit point (perigee) and a furthest away position (apogee)'.

     The two bodies we're talking about here are the Earth and the Moon, but they are not orbiting each other as Ring believes. The Moon certainly orbits the Earth, but we don't orbit the Moon.

     By mentioning numerous disasters he informs us that 'Perigees are always bad news, and severe weather can usually be guaranteed'. Notice the weasel words. The first part of the sentence assures us that 'Perigees are always bad news', with 'always' meaning, well... always. Then in the second part of the sentence he backs away from such certainty, and now says that 'severe weather can usually be guaranteed', so not always. I don't think that saying something 'can usually be guaranteed' even makes any real sense.

     I also noticed that he repeats two claims that he knows are wrong, since he has previously been made aware of the facts. However once Ring has invented a lie he seemingly can't stop himself from repeating it. His first lie is when he says that,

     'There are many examples of terrible perigee events in NZ. On 3 June 1886, two days before perigee, Lake Tarwera erupted, inducing the destruction of the famous Pink and White terraces'

     For one, lakes do not erupt, it was the Mt Tarawera volcano that erupted, and two, the eruption and destruction actually occurred on the 10th June, 1886, not the 3rd June as Ring falsely claims. Ring keeps making up a history that never happened merely to pretend that the Moon is wrecking havoc. In his second (and third) lie, Ring writes that,

     'But as the NZ Metservice has shown, despite expensive technology - including a $42 million computer forecasting system called Fitzroy... '

     And yet back in January Ring wrote that,

     'In NZ the National Climate Office has a supercomputer called Fitzroy, installed in 2009 at a cost of $40m'.

     So who owns the computer, is it the MetService or the National Climate Office, and did it cost $40 million or $42 million? Actually, none of the above. The computer is owned by NIWA, there is no such thing as the National Climate Office, and it cost $12.7 million, not Ring's much larger figures of $40 or $42 million. And just to highlight another example of Ring getting his facts wrong, it became operational in 2010, not 2009. You just can't believe anything he says. Even when reporting on something that is real, Ring can't be bothered doing a little research, he simply lies and assumes no one will check his claims. He's not just scammer, but an arrogant scammer.

     He finishes his fantasy article with this,

     'most mariners and farmers know about perigees, and they and the people of Christchurch know that perigees are not to be trusted'.

     I know more farmers than I know mariners, but I would hazard a guess that none of them would know what a perigee was, and if one or two did, none would be watching out for them. Likewise I doubt if most people in Christchurch are fearful of perigees, the ones I know certainly aren't. And does Ring's belief that 'perigees are not to be trusted' reveal something psychological? He's attributing human attributes to a mindless event, suggesting that they're like people, out to gain our trust, but then they'll turn on us! My grandpappy always said he'd never met an astrologer or a perigee that he could trust. Advice to live by.
675. Comment by Ron, 19 May, 2015

     Hello John. Re. your reply to my last post on Ken Ring, perigees etc. Yes, John, I know, I know, the awful truth hurts. Another seminar by astrologers means the last one must have been profitable. I simply have a hard time coping with this depressing reality.

     Some further comments. Did you ever read comments/hype on "The Rural" promoting Ring's 2015 almanac after it was released last year. Firstly it went through all the months with a brief overview but the end statement bowled me. Quote: "Of course overall monthly predictions are one thing but where Ken Ring excels at is the daily predictions. For that, you will need to get your hands on a copy of the book and discover what weather you can expect every day for 2015". Heaven forbid. When do the mistruths ever stop. The exact opposite is the truth. Those daily whatever one calls them are the disasters that give him his overall poor under 30% "success" rate.

     John, you mentioned some of Ring's books incl. the subject of cats. Seems little comment out there on his publication "How Your Cat Chose You". Don't think it was taken seriously enough. However, "Pawmistry" was a different matter. I found this. "Ken Ring is co-author of Pawmistry, the runaway best-seller that allowed cat owners for the first time to learn about their cats inner character by examining its paws. Here you will learn (yes, you can actually learn from this book) how you behave in relationships, the extent of authority you command, unconscious body language you are using. This is about cats and their people, how they adjust to each other in a fascinating balance. Based on sound psychology etc. Easy to read. Mr Ring has suggested some rules for relationships we can all plug in to". Did you have a go at getting a copy to read John? You have mentioned you have a cat? If so did you learn heaps of useful info from the gifted best-selling author?

     You mentioned Bigfoot. One of the most boring TV programs called "Finding Bigfoot" went on forever on Sky. They never found him.

     I think I have. Me. I have size 11 feet and frequently trip into or kick things. The other day I accidentally kicked the side of my wifes foot. She just said "Bigfoot". So there is another mystery solved.

676. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 May, 2015

     Hi Ron. I don't believe the reality is as depressing as Ring's brave front might suggest. I think Ring's reputation and his ability to attract clients has greatly diminished over the last few years. Rather than merely promoting his work, he's mostly now on the defensive, he's been kicked off radio's 'Farming Show', and next year he says his almanac won't be found in shops: 'For 2016 expect a much reduced work, available only through our website and not through shops. That is the economic reality...' In the mind of a now better informed public he's gone from being a respected mathematician and scientist to a derided ex-clown and astrologer. Ring's astrology is like the old VCRs, both have been superseded, and will disappear with the generation that still uses them. And of course we skeptics can speed up this process by enlightening any naïve acquaintance that suggests Ring might know what he's talking about.

     No, I haven't read the review of Ring's almanac by 'The Rural', but I have read others that are very similar. Clearly they aren't real independent reviews but are simply designed to promote his product. There is no way that the reviewer can judge the accuracy of Ring's 2015 almanac by claiming that 'where Ken Ring excels at is the daily predictions', since back in 2014 all those daily predictions are just that, predictions. None have yet come true so no claim can be made to their accuracy. But deceptive reporters know that some readers will fall for these bogus reviews, so we'll continue to see them making things up to keep Ring as a client.

     Yes I do have a copy of 'Pawmistry'. What did I learn? That a lot of trees died for nothing worthwhile, needlessly turned into paper on which was smeared bullshit. And no, I didn't pay for it, it was in a box of free books that a second hand bookshop was trying to get rid of. When questioned about his reading of cat's paws, Ring insists that it was all a joke, that he was making fun of the fools that believe in this sort of thing. And yet you never get a sense of satire or ridicule from his book, it reads as any other book of this genre reads, that its author is a sincere believer in mindless nonsense. Speaking of Ring's second book on cats and their spooky nature, and since Ring is so embarrassed by his 'Pawmistry' book and is annoyed that people keep reminding him of it, it seems strange that he would write another along similar lines. He doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. So why might he have again written a book that makes him look foolish? Does he need the money or does he seriously believe in this nonsense and desperately want others to believe in it too? He's claimed in the past that he makes little money from his books, so that suggests that he's mainly trying to spread his silly beliefs.

     As for your boring Bigfoot doco on Sky TV, I've found that nearly all those docos that look at controversial topics such as Bigfoot, UFOs and aliens, religion, ghosts, alternative healing etc. are like the above review of Ring's work, they say what the believer wants to hear. There is a far bigger market for nonsense than there is for skeptical docos that explain that there's no good evidence supporting any of these ideas. The docos aim to keep hope alive, and ensure that by the end of the program the mystery still continues. The docos that debunk these things are thin on the ground compared to those that maintain belief in spooky things.

     [Ron, you also asked about spirit guides, and I've moved that discussion here, to a page more suited to that topic.]

677. Comment by Ken Ring, 21 May, 2015

     Expectations in weather science

     I often think people get the wrong idea of what this method consists of, and what the science of weather is all about. If you go to a doctor, you go to get information froim which YOU can make an informed choice. Weather is the same. I present information, in my case weather maps, for a year in advance. From that I invite people to interpret trends for their own area.

     People are expected to make the predictions for them. I cannot do it for them, although I will suggest trends, and they stand as potentials but they are not predictions. It is no good saying oh we didn't get rain and you said we might, on a parrticular day. Every valley, town and hillside location has its own microclimate. I cannot possibly be expected to know them all.

     It is unresaonable to unfairly judge an outside service, Met Eireann, NZ metservice, BoM included, if they expect them to say for certain what is going to happen. Anyone who really knows weather science and has to depend on it, like farmers and fishermen, know to look at say, a westerly wind pattern and say well, there'll possibly be some drying over the next couple of days, or an easterly and say I think I might get a bit of rain out of this one, or a southerly (in Ireland, the oppoisite in the southern hemisphere) and say I might expect some milder temperatures in the short term, or a northerly around a winter full moon and say I'd better be on the lookout for some frosts.

     Yes, I will suggest general effects, but I only direct readers to my isobaric maps because that is what I generate first, from lunar orbits. As I understand it, that was also the essence of the old astrology. People who sought some help in order to make a decision were shown charts that were based on the way seasons work and cycles return, and they were asked what they thought was relevant to them. It was a participatory dialogue.

     But these days people want someone else to make decisions and then they blame that third party if things don't turn out. They don't think of blaming themselves for deciding to suspend their own judgement, or blaming themselves for the wrong choice of which oracle to approach. It's really just laziness and because we have so much busier lives these days, and so we ask others to decide for us. We avoid taking responsibility for what we decide to do.

     So when people say I was incorrect, I ask, which map was inaccurate. And if they say well, I didn't look at the map. I have to say, well you are the one who is incorrect, because I state everywhere that it is up to you to make the predictions and only up to me to supply the ingredients. If a cake doesn't turn out right, you don't complain to the water, salt, oil, sugar, egg and flour suppliers and say the ingredients didn't work..

     I do realise there is a wish to label me an astrologer, and that is by people who don't understand what it means, and merely because I use science in this old way. They use "astrologer" as a put down. But I would never put myself in the exalted company of those longrange forecasters of old, like Copernicus, Galileo, Nostradamus, Newton, Franklin, Kepler etc, who used what was then called astrology to produce their longrange weather almanacs, which they all happened to do.

     If I believed I was an astrologer I would say so. But to me an astrologer in the 21st century is one who helps people with relationships and personal problems, not weather. Consequently I have never put astrologer on any tax return, census form, passport, or drivers license, because I consider myself just a forecaster who happens to sometimes use tools that astrologers of old used. That does not make me an astrologer, any more than if I sometimes used a hammer in the course of my work I could officially call myself a carpenter, and thenceforth put carpenter on my passport etc. Longrange forecaster is enough of a handle, and I will make use of whatever I think is of valuable assistance.

     Finally, this reference of yours is very amusing:

     John Campbell: 'What is your tertiary education in the area of science Mr Ring, what is your qualification?'
     Ken Ring: 'What has that got to do with what I'm doing now, there is not a university chair in what I'm talking about'.
     John Campbell: 'Could you answer my question please Mr Ring... or I'll just assume you don't have a qualification'.
     Ken Ring: 'John, what qualification does Richie McCall have to be captain of the All Blacks... '

     You may not be aware that John Campbell does not have a degree in broadcasting nor journalism. He did an economics course at Auckland University. I do not have a meteorology degree simply because there is none, and no one in NZ has one. Meteorologists in NZ do a 1-year in-house diploma which prepares them for work in a metoffice in NZ. I have never had occasion to apply for such work. I do not do regular meteorology, which consists of looking only 1-3 days ahead, so it is a bit unreasonable to be required, for the sake of ignorant critics, to get a qualification that does not exist for work I do not do.
678. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 May, 2015

     You say Ken that 'people get the wrong idea of what this method consists of, and what the science of weather is all about'. People only get false expectations of what your method can deliver Ken because you falsely imply that your astrological method is a science, when it is nothing of the sort. Your bogus claims lead them to expect that your method is very reliable in predicting the weather, at least as good as conventional forecasting, and in most cases far superior. The only people that have the wrong idea as to what your method achieves are those that believe in your claims. The rest of us have a very good idea of what your method consists of: lies and deceptions designed to bring in money for you.

     As for your doctor analogy Ken, a doctor is a recognised expert, with extensive training, experience and qualifications in a field that has been proven effective. While you have some experience, you are not a recognised expert in weather forecasting, you have no training or qualifications, and your field of 'astrometeorology' has been proven to be a silly pseudoscience. Going to an astrologer like yourself and expecting to receive reliable weather and earthquake predictions would be like asking your doctor for plumbing or legal advice. You comparing yourself to a doctor is as silly as a witch doing the same. Like doctors and scientists you need to demonstrate that your claims are true, you can't simply expect the respect we have for their work to transfer to you merely because you compare yourself to them.

     You've described yourself on the radio as 'a long range forecaster'. You now again say that your weather predictions or forecasts aren't that at all, that they're merely 'potentials' or 'opinions', but you're not fooling anyone Ken, so stop being so childish. Let's remember that your almanac until just recently was called 'Predict Weather', and your Internet site still is. You argue that you can't be expected to know what weather might be expected 'on a parrticular day', and yet you widely promote your business as being able to predict the weather for a wedding or festival or holiday weekend, all which must fall on particular days. This is what is called false advertising Ken.

     You say that 'It is unresaonable to unfairly judge an outside service, Met Eireann, NZ metservice, BoM included, if they expect them to say for certain what is going to happen'. I agree, but no one expects you or any other weather forecaster to 'say for certain what is going to happen'. Stop inventing straw man arguments. We don't demand certainty, we simply expect forecasts to be generally reliable, to be right more often than they are wrong. In this regard there is no evidence that your forecasts are reliable, and much evidence that your forecasts are woefully inaccurate, with you missing extreme weather events time after time.

     I'm a little confused with this comment of yours: 'Anyone who really knows weather science and has to depend on it, like farmers and fishermen...'. If farmers and fishermen are experts in weather science as you claim, then why would they need to come to you for weather advice? Surely it's the people that don't know their weather science that must seek you out?

     You wrote that 'I only direct readers to my isobaric maps because that is what I generate first, from lunar orbits. As I understand it, that was also the essence of the old astrology'. OK first, must we remind you once again that you don't actually generate those isobaric maps, you simply purchase them and put your date stamp on them. And second, the old astrologers didn't make isobaric maps so could hardly have asked their clients about them.

     I don't often agree with your views Ken, but I think that you're really spot on when you explain that 'these days people want someone else to make decisions and then they blame that third party if things don't turn out. They don't think of blaming themselves for deciding to suspend their own judgement, or blaming themselves for the wrong choice of which oracle to approach'. They most definitely should blame themselves for 'deciding to suspend their own judgement', that is, suspending their rational and critical thinking and electing to accept weather horoscopes from an astrologer. And they most definitely should blame themselves for 'the wrong choice of which oracle to approach'. There is plenty of evidence that, as oracles go, Ken Ring the weather astrologer should not be approached. We all have easy access to free weather forecasts on TV and radio, so clearly it's the wrong choice to want to buy forecasts from an astrologer. We're not blaming you Ken for those people that make silly decisions and buy your products, they are free agents after all, but we are blaming you for taking advantage of their gullibility. We need to protect certain vulnerable members of society, not rip them off.

     Trying to deny that you have any responsibility as to how accurate your forecasts are, I think you are being rather duplicitous when you say, 'I state everywhere that it is up to you to make the predictions and only up to me to supply the ingredients'. By the same logic, this would be like turning up to a hospital for surgery and the surgeon hands you a gown, a scalpel, a local anaesthetic and 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to Surgery'. Or you board a plane as a passenger and the pilot leads you to the cockpit, points out a few important instruments, buttons and levers and before leaving says you have all the ingredients you need to fly to your destination. The reality is that people turn to experts, be they surgeons, pilots or weather forecasters, and expect them to provide a professional service that they can't perform themselves. If you aren't prepared to provide such a professional service, then you need to change the name of your almanac to 'Ken Ring's DIY Guide to Weather Predicting'.

     Once again Ken, we label you an astrologer because it accurately defines what you do. You make 'astrological forecasts... based on a diagram of the aspect of the planets and stars at a given moment'. You openly acknowledge that you study astrology and use it to make your forecasts, you've revealed what astrology programs you use in your work and you've written several articles extolling the benefits of using astrology. As they say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Ergo, you're an astrologer. You want to use astrology Ken but you don't want people to call you a user of astrology, ie an astrologer, since you correctly recognise that in modern society the title carries with it a belief in primitive, superstitious nonsense. That's something you need to come to terms with. Furthermore, you (falsely) claim that your historical heroes were all astrologers because they used 'astrology to produce their longrange weather almanacs'. You claim to do the same, so if they were astrologers because of the way they worked, then so are you. If your use of astrology doesn't make you an astrologer, then neither were any of those men astrologers. So which is it Ken, are you all astrologers, or are none of you astrologers? Either way you lose. You finished by saying, 'If I believed I was an astrologer I would say so'. Sorry Ken, but this is as believable as certain Catholic priests saying, 'If I believed I was a pedophile I would say so'.

     Of course it pains me to say that you are again knowingly lying when you claim that 'forecasters of old, like Copernicus, Galileo, Nostradamus, Newton, Franklin, Kepler etc... used what was then called astrology to produce their longrange weather almanacs'. You have been told time and time again, and shown the evidence, that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Franklin and Kepler were not astrologers. It's true that astronomer Kepler did dabble in astrology, but that does not make him an astrologer. You should understand the logic of this argument because you use it yourself, arguing that simply using a hammer in the course of your work doesn't make you a carpenter. Furthermore, while Franklin did produce weather almanacs, none of the others did. And as for Franklin's beliefs, biographer Alfred Aldridge wrote that Franklin 'had little more faith in orthodox doctrine than in witchcraft or astrology'. And why have you started to include Nostradamus in your list? Certainly he was an astrologer, unlike the rest, but he was also one of history's most famous nut cases. He's not someone that lends credibility to your work.

     I can understand why you would tell these lies to new clients Ken, but I honestly can't comprehend why you keep repeating them to us? Early onset Alzheimer's perhaps? Maybe you should go in for a test. If you insist that your memory is fine, then please explain why you keep repeating lies? If you don't think they are lies, then please show the evidence that 'Copernicus, Galileo, Nostradamus, Newton, Franklin, Kepler etc... used what was then called astrology to produce their longrange weather almanacs'. Of course you've refused to produce this evidence for some years now, so I won't hold my breath.

     I don't know why you find your 'Campbell Live' interview amusing, I'd be embarrassed with such a poor showing. And we don't care whether John Campbell has a degree in broadcasting or journalism. You seem to miss the point that you were there to defend your earthquake predictions, not to critique the interviewer's qualifications. You have alternatively challenged science and supported science, so you were asked what expertise in the form of tertiary education and qualifications you had that might make you the expert that you were claiming to be. Viewers had the right to know whether you were an authority or a crank. And embarrassingly for you, you don't have any tertiary qualification or indeed any qualification at all in the field that you pontificate on. Still refusing to say what qualification you do have, you now say,

     'I do not have a meteorology degree simply because there is none, and no one in NZ has one. Meteorologists in NZ do a 1-year in-house diploma which prepares them for work in a metoffice in NZ'.

     As I'm sure you're well aware, you are quite wrong to imply that your typical meteorologist has no tertiary degree, but merely a 1 year diploma. (Even so, this would still be more than what you have Ken.) A quick Internet search for careers as a meteorologist in both NZ and Australia showed that Metservice, NIWA and BoM all require applicants to have university degrees:

     MetService

     MetService recruits and trains university graduates to work as meteorologists in the National Forecasting Centre. To be considered for meteorologist training, you must have a BSc, BSc(Hons) or MSc in mathematics or physics (or geophysics...)

     What the Formal Training Involves:
     Your first 41 weeks is spent undergoing formal training at MetService's Corporate Office... This training is a mixture of meteorological theory and forecasting practice. It's technically about as hard as your 300-level year at university, but with a higher workload.

     NIWA

     Meteorologists/Forecasters - NIWA
     ...you will have a Bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics or atmospheric science, and/or equivalent experience in a relevant aspect of engineering or environmental science, along with a qualification and/or training in weather forecasting and media presenting. A comprehensive knowledge of New Zealand meteorology and climate (including atmosphere, hydrosphere and marine environments) and climate outlook science would be an advantage.

     Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

     You need:
     an undergraduate or postgraduate degree, with a major in a physical science or mathematics, and enough mathematics and physics to be a basis for the study of physical and dynamic meteorology, i.e. completion of study in both these subjects to second year university level

     Our Training:
     If your application is successful, you can look forward to participating in a comprehensive training program. Our meteorology training course is... equivalent to one academic year and is of a similar standard to the honours year of a Bachelor degree.

     So don't bother applying for such work Ken, since the '1 year diploma' that meteorologists must complete is on top of a science degree you don't have. It's typical of you to try and pretend that meteorologists are just barely more qualified than you are. Is there no end to your deceptions?

     And yes, we agree that genuine qualifications do not exist for the work you do, it has been many centuries since you could qualify in astrology, witchcraft or alchemy. And there is a good reason for this Ken, we suggest you deliberate on it for a while. But you only rarely venture forth into the real world Ken, so why do you waste bandwidth just parroting the same tired old lies when you do so? Why don't you answer some of our many genuine inquires or at least present some arguments for your method that are new, ones that the likes of Galileo hasn't already debunked. Surely you must have something that might make us reconsider our stance? Anything?

679. Comment by Daryl, 21 May, 2015

     Hi John, a question if I may? Not really moon man related though. I flicked over to a doco on discovery last night. I think it was called 'secrets of the........moon'. I only started watching half way through but the point of the documentary was that the moon was slowly (very slowly) moving away from earth. They then moved on to state that the moon was responsible for holding earth's 'wobble' in check and that as the moon moves away, the earth could eventually 'fall on it's side' causing all sorts changes to the way we experienced seasons.

     I was a little doubtful about these claims but my internet search threw up arguments from 'yup, that's correct', 'no, that's a myth' to 'it would wobble only a little more without the moon'.

     Has this debate been settled yet or are you able to offer any information around it?

680. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 May, 2015

     Hi Daryl. From what I've read, the views expressed in that doco are indeed correct. The Moon is spiralling very, very slowing away from the Earth, and it evidently became clear in the early 1990's that it also helps stabilise the Earth's axis of rotation. As for what might happen in the deep future, the following is from the book 'Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe', by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee:

     'The Moon plays three pivotal roles that affect the evolution and survival of life on Earth. It causes lunar tides, it stabilizes the tilt of Earth's spin axis, and it slows the Earth's rate of rotation. Of these, the most important is its effect on the angle of tilt of Earth's spin axis relative to the plane of its orbit, which is called "obliquity." Obliquity is the cause of seasonal changes. For most of Earth's recent history, its obliquity has not varied by more than a degree or two from its present value of 23 degrees...'

     'This angle is nearly constant for hundreds of millions of years because of gravitational effects of the Moon. Without the Moon, the tilt angle would wander in response to the gravitational pulls of the sun and Jupiter. The monthly motion of our large Moon damps any tendencies for the tilt axis to change. If the Moon were smaller or more distant, or if Jupiter were larger or closer, or if Earth were closer to or farther from the sun, the Moon's stabilizing influence would be less effective. Without a large moon, Earth's spin axis might vary by as much as 90 degrees...'

     'In the distant future, the Moon will lose its ability to stabilize Earth's spin axis. The Moon is slowly moving outward from Earth (at a rate of about 4 centimeters a year), and within 2 billion years it will be too far away to have enough influence to stabilize Earth's obliquity. Earth's tilt angle will begin to change as a result, and the planet's climate will follow suit. Further complicating the future is the slow but unrelenting increase in the brightness of the sun. At the time when our planet's spin axis begins to wander, the sun will be hotter, and both effects will decrease the habitability of Earth. There is currently much speculation about how rapid such changes of planetary obliquity might be in the absence of the Moon. Estimates for the time it would take Earth to "roll" on its side range from tens of millions of years to far shorter periods. Astronomer Tom Quinn of the University of Washington has suggested to us that the time of obliquity change could occur on scales as short as hundreds of thousands, rather than millions, of years. Such large-scale fluctuations would probably lead to very rapid and violent climate change. If the tropical regions became locked in a permanent ice cover in 100,000 years or less, there would certainly be a mass extinction of great severity.'

     Apparently the debate over how extreme or rapid any axis change might be is centred around events that are still 2 billion years away. And clearly 2 billion years is still some time off, so I don't think we need panic just yet. Furthermore, in perhaps just a billion years, due to changes in the Sun Earth may well be uninhabitable, so no one will be here to notice the changing seasons. Of course all this talk of changing orbits and axial tilt will confuse the astrologers, since in their worldview the orbital cycles should always remain the same. The Moon shouldn't be slowly moving away, never to return. Naughty, naughty Moon!
681. Comment by Alison, 24 May, 2015

     If Newton published a 'weather almanac' it's not listed here: 'Newton's Life and Work at a Glance'.

682. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 May, 2015

     To find a mention of Newton's 'weather almanac' Alison, one would need to travel to Ringworld and do a Vulcan 'mind meld' with Ring himself, since it can only be found in his imagination.

683. Comment by Jamie, 25 May, 2015

     Hi John, let's hear Ken try and explain this one...

     His tweet on 11th May:

     "Fickle winter weather this year for NZ
     The big snows and wintry blasts are still over a month away.
     Then watch out!
     http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=516&type=home"

     and now only 2 weeks later we have a spectacular wintry blast making headlines. Even the Hawkes Bay is affected...
     http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/live-updates-snow-heading-north-taupo-hawke-s-bay-get-surprise-dump-6319642

     Plus/minus 3 weeks margin of error perhaps?

684. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 May, 2015

     Hi Jamie. Ken Ring must dread the future, since clearly it is out to destroy what reputation he has left. His predictions couldn't be further from reality if he tried. Numerous roads are closed in Central Otago and Southland due to snow, closing schools as well. It's snowing in Dunedin. The widespread wintry blast means it's bitterly cold as I write this, but look at what Ring predicted in his Mid-May 2015 Newsletter:

     'Very warm and dry. Much sun in far south... Noticeable absence of gales. "Indian summer" conditions with extended periods of settled weather and dry conditions... sunnier than normal may in far south of South Island... The anticyclonic conditions bring above normal temperatures, especially... Central Otago... Mean temperatures also above normal in inland regions as well as coastal areas... and unusually warm in far south.

     Extracted from the 2015 New Zealand Almanac'

     In what parallel universe does the phrase 'Very warm and dry' actually mean very cold and wet? That Ring and his moronic supporters aren't terribly embarrassed by clear failures like this is really quite mystifying. How can Ring go out in public without some sort of disguise, and how can his supporters continue to vouch for him? I've heard of people being in denial and unable to face reality, but this blind obedience to a silly worthless superstition that intelligent people ditched centuries ago is frankly quite ridiculous.
685. Comment by Ken Ring, 25 May, 2015

     Well, if you insist on calling me an astrologer I am indeed flattered. I would never do that. I am in awe of the real astrologers, taken into the west by the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Lamark, Laplace, Nostradamus, and refined into what became modern physics by Tyco Brahe, Kepler, Franklin, Descartes, Newton, Herschel etc. Oh, and I should not forget John Flamsteed the astrologer, who built the Greenwich Observatory, still the benchmark standard for world time, and whose horoscope wheel is engraved on the outside wall of that fine building. Do you deny that?

     If it were not for the walking geniuses who were high speed human mathematical calculators, who went from town to town solving civic problems, and who painstakingly constructed astrological-astronomical charts, in a tradition that led through Persia, India and China, that eventually became today's mathematics, a tradition thousands of years in the making, we would not have today's computers. Would you deny that?

     All universities were once part of Muslim culture for the purpose of teaching astrology and furthering Islam, and they ran for 400 years before any European university was founded. All western education owes their institution to ancient astrologers, as does all science and agriculture, which came under the astrology label. If you reject that, where do you think western education, calendars and science arose from - do you think it all suddenly appeared out of nowhere?

     Even books began with astrology, to record lunar phases previously marked off on tally sticks and shells - in other words astrology is as old as writing itself. Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with some serious reading of what astrology actually is, rather than just reading the back pages of your women's magazines and Sunday Heralds before going off into your lengthy hate-speech monologues devoid of historical fact. I suggest rather than reading only biased criticisms of astrology by other dummies also too lazy to study it, read Campion's work: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_campion.html

     Then come back informed enough to discuss the real thing.

     As for qualification, thank you for reiterating what I said, that there is no degree in meteorology. I have a tertiary qualification but it is not in astrometeorology, my field of study, for which there is no chair at any university in the western world. That you need another degree to actually do NIWA's diploma is not relevant here. Your degree is still the other one.

     Obviously

686. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 May, 2015

     You really don't get it do you Ken? We don't call you an astrologer because we think you have an intellect comparable to the likes of Newton, Galileo or Descartes, none of who were astrolgers, or that you likewise are making a valuable contribution to banishing ignorance from the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

     For the umpteenth time, we identify you as an astrologer because you fit the definition. Someone that drives a car is a driver, someone that follows the teaching of Jesus is a Christian, someone that uses esoteric knowledge to make magic potions is a witch, and someone that uses medieval astrology to make predictions, for example you, is an astrologer. You are judged by your actions Ken, not by what you want to be called. It's not rocket science, surely you can grasp Ken that living, breathing, studying, promoting and selling astrological predictions makes you an astrologer? We're not saying you're a brilliant astrologer Ken, perish the thought, we're merely identifying you as someone that practices one of the ancient arts, like witches.

     We know that you're firmly ensconced in your closet and that you will not openly admit that you're an astrologer, even though with your work and articles you may well be NZ's foremost astrology groupie. But just as we all know that the pope is a Catholic, informed people know that you're a closeted astrologer Ken. That's something you need to come to terms with.

     And beyond showing that Newton etc were not astrologers, we're not arguing historical fact per se, we're arguing that your old astrology is absolutely useless at predicting... well... anything. Your argument Ken seems to be that since some people did something or believed something in the dim past then we should keep doing it today. OK Ken, you worship ancient astrologers, we get it. You believe that every person from history that contributed something to our knowledge of the world was an astrologer. Science, agriculture, calendars, computers, mathematics, writing, education and universities, we owe it all to astrologers in your opinion. Of course this is as false as someone saying we owe it all to the witches. We've already acknowledged that astrologers, along with witches, priests, alchemists etc, did indeed make the odd discovery that helped society progress, while at the same time holding untold false beliefs that hindered progress. Why do you swoop through history in search of the spark that created our modern world and stop at the astrologer? Religion is far older and more widespread than astrology, so if we're going to attribute any occupation as perhaps driving the search for knowledge, then why not pick the village shaman and ancient priests?

     We said to you just a month ago that '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... 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 no longer live in Paleolithic times or even medieval times, and while we can be thankful for the discoveries that were made in the past, it is utterly ridiculous to argue, as you do, that we should be turning back to them. They were important discoveries for their time, but often very basic, and were usually entangled with a raft of other beliefs that were completely wrong. The observations that ancient astrologers made of the night sky were valuable, but the explanations that astrologers concocted to explain them, the core of astrology, were utterly bogus. Looking back into our deep past we can thank astrologers yes, but also witches, priests, philosophers, alchemists, warriors, healers, merchants, farmers and troglodytes for all making some small but crucial discovery that would eventually lead to me typing this in the comfort of a 21st century home. But to claim that without astrologers we would still be living in caves has no basis in fact. It's as childish as saying that without Adam and Eve we wouldn't have nudist clubs.

     You've claimed repeatedly over the years Ken that famous scientists from history such as Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, Lamark [sic], Laplace, Nostradamus, Brahe, Kepler, Franklin, Descartes, Newton, Herschel, Flamsteed etc were all astrologers. We, and others, have demonstrated ad nauseam that none of these people, except Nostradamus, were real astrologers, that many ridiculed astrology, and most importantly, none are famous for any belief or work they did regarding astrology. And yet like a brain damaged parrot you keep claiming that Newton et al were all astrologers and used 'astroloy to produce their longrange weather almanacs'. But beyond repeating these lies over and over again, you don't provide any evidence that these men made important astrological discoveries that have been accepted into modern science. We challenge you Ken to name one valid astrological discovery that any of these men made and that subsequently made them famous. Note that we said 'astrological' discovery, not astronomical or geological or biological etc. If they are famous astrologers as you claim, as opposed to astronomers or simply scientists, then clearly they must be famous for astrological discoveries. What are these discoveries Ken? We eagerly await your answer and supporting evidence. Also I found on this astrology site a list of the 'Top 10 Astrologers of All Time'. Other than Nostradamus, none of your names Ken appear on their list or in the comments discussing the list. Why do people who call themselves astrologers provide a completely different list to you Ken?

     While we wait, we've already debunked your claims that Copernicus, Newton, Descartes etc were astrologers, so we won't repeat it. However we see you've again mentioned some names we haven't debunked, like Lamark [sic], Franklin and John Flamsteed. By Lamark we assume you mean Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the French naturalist. It is true that he did perform meteorological research, especially on clouds, but in no way was astrology involved. If you have evidence to the contrary Ken you need to produce it. As for your claim that Benjamin Franklin was an astrologer since he produced an almanac, we've already noted that biographer Alfred Aldridge wrote that Franklin 'had little more faith in orthodox doctrine than in witchcraft or astrology'. Adding to that, John D. Cox in his book 'Storm Watchers: The Turbulent History of Weather Prediction from Franklin's Kite to El Nino', wrote that,

     'In the colonies, Franklin himself enjoyed a handsome income for 25 years as publisher of Poor Richard's Almanack, although is prognostications of weather always came with characteristic humor and wit. Praising Franklin's contributions to meteorology, the pioneering American weather scientist Cleveland Abbe took a close look at the Franklin almanacs in 1906 and found no astrology in them. In a presentation to the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, Abbe said, "Now while it is true that in these he published conjectures as to the weather during the respective years, yet we are not to think of Franklin as a planetary meteorologist, for the fact is that in every one of these issues he disclaims all knowledge of the weather or astrology and pokes fun at his own predictions as utterly absurd and useless."'

     As for your comments about John Flamsteed, you're correct about the horoscope on the Greenwich Observatory, but you're completely wrong in claiming that Flamsteed 'built the Greenwich Observatory'. As this article explains:

     'The observatory was built at the behest of King Charles II to the designs of the famous architect Sir Christopher Wren, who until 1673 had been Savilian professor of Astronomy at Oxford. Its construction was supervised by Robert Hooke. Flamsteed laid the foundation stone on 10 August 1675, and moved in the following year.'

     So Flamsteed didn't design or build the observatory as you claim, and as this article explains, even Flamsteed's horoscope has been misinterpreted:

     'The foundation-stone was laid August 10, 1675, and Flamsteed amused himself by drawing the horoscope of the Observatory, a fact which in spite of his having written across the face of the horoscope Risum teneatis amici? (Can you keep from laughter, my friends ?), and his having two or three years before written very severely against the imposture of astrology, has led some modern astrologers to claim him as a believer in their cult.'

     So Ken, you're being deceptive by describing him as 'John Flamsteed the astrologer' when everyone else describes him as an astronomer or as the first Astronomer Royal. As for how serious he was regarding astrology, perhaps you should read this article abstract from which I offer the following quote:

     'Abstract

     The paper deals with the astronomical and astrological contents of a horoscope cast by John Flamsteed in 1675 for the foundation of Greenwich Observatory.

     ...This leads to the question whether Flamsteed believed in astrology. Michael Hunter has already given evidence that Flamsteed was indeed well-versed with astrological techniques and supplied astrologers with data. But at the same time he expressed hostility towards astrological interpretations issued frequently by different parties during Civil War in England. In an unpublished preface for Hecker's Tables (edited by Hunter) Flamsteed tried to show the "Vanity of Astrology, & the Practice of Astrologers". Therefore he cannot be taken as an ardent astrologer, although he was well acquainted with the art.'

     Are you noticing a pattern here Ken? Pretty much all of the of the people you claim are astrologers, except the likes of Nostradamus, are either utterly dismissive of astrology, like Newton and Descartes, or if they, like you, dabbled in it for personal gain, or studied it at university, none took it all that seriously.

     For some years now Ken we have requested that you define what astrology is, since you disagree with the definitions we've offered, or that you at least point us to the modern astrologers who you view as experts. You've always refused to respond, but now we see you've finally revealed one of your astrologer gurus, Nicholas Campion. We read that he's a renown astrologer as well as being Senior Lecturer in Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Wales, Lampeter. You suggest that we 'read Campion's work... acquaint yourself with some serious reading of what astrology actually is... Then come back informed enough to discuss the real thing'. Typically though, the link you provided was not really Campion's work, it was merely a review of one of his books and it revealed little about your old astrology. However in our 'Silly Beliefs' extensive library we do have a later book (2012) by Nicholas Campion, entitled 'Astrology and Cosmology in the World's Religions'. So since this is your astrology expert, finally we can get a real explanation from an educated, respected, practicing astrologer. We can now learn how your old medieval astrology differs from that found in 'the back pages of... women's magazines and Sunday Heralds'. Let us quote some passages from Chapter 2, 'Astrology: The Celestial Mirror':

     'Astrology assumes that there is a significant relationship between the stars or planets and affairs on earth. From this simple principle have developed all the many forms of astrology practiced or studied across the world. The word is derived from the Greek astron (star) and logos. Logos is simply translated as "word," so astrology is, then, the "word" of the stars: The stars "speak." However, in the context of classical thought, we may also consider that the stars possess reason, or a kind of logic, that can provide important information. Until the 17th century the word was frequently interchangeable with "astronomy," the "regulation" or "law" of the stars. In King Lear, Shakespeare had Edgar refer to his brother Edmund, who had been posing as an astrologer, as a "sectary astronomical." Other terms Shakespeare might have used include "mathematician" (the astronomer Johannes Kepler studied astrology as part of his duties as "Imperial Mathematician") or "Chaldean" (both astrology and astronomy were commonly traced to Chaldea, or Mesopotamia)...

     When I use the words "astronomy" and "astrology" in this book, for simplicity, I apply "astronomy" to the measurement of the positions of the celestial bodies and "astrology" to the assumption that the stars and planets possess, or impart, meaning. A note on terminology is necessary here: "Astrology" always includes the sun and the moon as planets, which is not how modern astronomy classifies them.

     Narrowly, astrology has often been defined as a peculiarly Hellenistic practice combining the use of horoscopes (mathematical diagrams intended to represent the heavens and used to gain insight into the past, present, and future) with an Aristotelian theory of celestial influence...

     Certain of the assumptions that underpin astrology are universal and can be reduced to the notion that either the entire cosmos is alive, or all its parts are interdependent, or both. Sky and earth are therefore related, and the fortunes of one can be read in the other. Astrology exists in most cultures at different levels of complexity and develops, like all other human activities, over time. However, in various forms it assumes one or more of the following: (1) the celestial bodies are divine, (2) the stars and planets send messages (Latin omen, or warning) on behalf of gods and goddesses, or God, (3) all things in the cosmos are interdependent, (4) the cosmos unfolds according to a strict mathematical or geometrical order, and (5) different times have different qualities.

     Thus astrology works either because the messages dispatched by the divinities are reliable or because the movements of the stars and planets are guides to terrestrial affairs. The Greek philosopher Aristotle added other explanatory models, including a theory of celestial influence... Broadly there are always three stages to the process of working with astrology, stages that are common to all cultures. First the sky is observed; this is now included in astronomy. Second, celestial patterns are interpreted. And, third, action is advised. This last consideration is vital, for astrology is invariably a guide to action.

     The fundamental premise of astrology is reflective: that the earth is a mirror of heaven, in the sense of the celestial realms, and vice versa. This is also a core tenet of cosmology across the ancient and medieval worlds. As the historian Xiaochun Sun put it in China, "The universe was conceived not as an object independent of man, but as a counterpart of and mirror of human society."...

     The notion of reflection, though, is only part of the story. Equally important is the concept of relationship — that the cosmos is alive and that everything in it exists in a series of relationships with all other things. Just as people relate to one another, so planets relate to people, and people to planets, indeed to everything. Most ancient cultures appear to have a view of the cosmos in which all things in the universe are connected in a web of personal relationships...

     One useful distinction among types of astrology in the West is that between natural and judicial. Natural astrology places the emphasis on the natural world, making generalized statements on the basis of celestial influences or planetary cycles. Some modern astrologers claim that the sunspot cycle (an eleven-year cycle in solar radiation) should be classed as natural astrology. Judicial astrology, on the other hand, as the name implies, requires that the astrologer make a judgment, usually using a horoscope, a highly codified diagram of the heavens for a precise time and place. The scope of judicial astrology's functions was defined in the classical period, and medieval Europeans understood judicial astrology, which rested in the use of horoscopes to reach judgments, as divided into four categories: Interrogations were horoscopes cast for the moment that a question was asked, genethlialogy was the interpretation of horoscopes set for birth, revolutions dealt with political and general worldly affairs, and elections were used to choose the most auspicious time to arrange important events. Not included in this typology were uses of astrology for magic, such as the casting of talismans (objects having astrological significance and intended to manipulate the psychic and physical environment) and the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Astrology might be used to analyze personal destiny, assess the soul's chances of salvation, cast spells, apply celestial myths to everyday problems, shed new light on history, find lost objects, predict the outcome of a battle, find the most auspicious time to launch a new enterprise, perform a ritual act, or construct a sacred calendar. It could be more or less deterministic, but it invariably required active human participation.

     We can conclude that, at least in most of its forms, astrology does not conform to a modern scientific paradigm that may require statistical samples and repeatable experiments.

     Astrology may treat the stars as signs, causes, or influences, while the stars may act on terrestrial affairs, correlate with them, or simply indicate them. And, even when they are causes or influences, they may not have any power in themselves but be acting on behalf of some superior force, creator, or god.'

     OK, if we weren't already, we are now 'informed enough to discuss the real thing'. I'm sorry Ken, but nothing your designated expert astrologer has said has convinced us that astrology is anything but superstitious nonsense, as we've always maintained. Let me just repeat some of the things Campion told us about what real astrology is:

     'Astrology assumes that there is a significant relationship between the stars or planets and affairs on earth... that the earth is a mirror of heaven, in the sense of the celestial realms, and vice versa... the cosmos is alive and that everything in it exists in a series of relationships with all other things. Just as people relate to one another, so planets relate to people, and people to planets, indeed to everything'.

     Contrary to what you claim Ken, this describes exactly what we read in 'the back pages of... women's magazines and Sunday Heralds'. We're guessing that you now disavow Campion as your chosen astrology expert? Perhaps you should have read all his books first, rather than just referring us to them, and no doubt hoping that we wouldn't bother reading them. Oops.

     I also searched Campion's book to read about the part important 'astologers' that you've listed played in the history of astrology, such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Newton etc, and not one was mentioned, apart from the above quote about Kepler where Campion labels him an astronomer. Newton did receive a mention, but only to describe how his astronomy conflicted with astrology. Why is it Ken that your astrology expert doesn't think that any of those men from history are astrology's heroes? I'm conflicted now Ken, who should we believe, you or your expert astrologer?

     And again you muddy the waters with your talk of the university degrees that you don't have. John Campbell did not ask if you had a degree in meteorology, he asked, 'What is your tertiary education in the area of science Mr Ring, what is your qualification?' And you really don't need to again inform us that no real university has a chair for astrology, they haven't had for several centuries now. Next you'll be telling us there are no degrees in witchcraft or alchemy either. And again, you are being duplicitous by arguing that the science degrees that meteorologists must have before they gain their '1 year diploma' 'is not relevant here'. Of course it is relevant, since it shows that they have, before they even start as meteorologists, a science background that you do not have. Academically Ken, meteorologists are almost as far above you as are your spooky constellations.

     But what is more surprising Ken is that you now claim, 'I have a tertiary qualification but it is not in astrometeorology'. For some years now you have been repeatedly asked by many people whether you have any qualifications, of any description, but especially in science, including meteorology, seismology, geology etc., that might make you an authority in weather and earthquake predictions. You have either ignored the question, got very annoyed or on rare occasions said no. Several times in our communications we have said, based on your own comments, that you evidently spent some time at university, the exact time varies as does the subjects you claimed to have studied, during which time you gave up on science and switched to the arts, but then still left without managing to gain a qualification of any description, not even in Medieval basket weaving. Not once have you challenged this version of events Ken. Not once.

     So how come for years you didn't have a tertiary qualification and yet now, out of the blue, you suddenly remember that you do have one after all? How could you have forgotten you had a degree, even if it was only in Medieval basket weaving? You haven't undergone hypnotic regression have you, suggested by someone in one of your support groups perhaps? Along with your degree, do you now remember being abducted by aliens too? But even though you've now remembered, you're still being totally devious by not revealing what that tertiary qualification is. If you're not prepared to tell us, and since it obviously has no relevance whatsoever to your work, then your tertiary qualification might as well be imaginary. What's that you say? It is imaginary?

     The trouble is Ken, like the boy who cried wolf, even if you do have a tertiary qualification that you'd strangely forgotten about, because of the many lies you've told regarding your 'university science education' (as you've described it), people will naturally assume that this is merely one more lie. And no, your diploma from clown college doesn't count as a tertiary qualification. What's that, you don't actually have any clown qualifications either? What about magic school? Did you at least get a leaving certificate? No... oh dear!

687. Comment by Lorene, 27 May, 2015

     I agree with Ken Ring your just one of the sheep. Science tells us the earth is moving why do you believe that? Is it because of the majority vote. Galileo suffered threats as well. People like you are lost. Most of the planet is liquid and the moon controls the tides you know its happening but you can't physically see it. Ken doesn't predict he studies the lunar patterns because he has the patience to study, see outside the box. Your the one stuck in the box and can't think beyond your limiting belief pattern. Wake up

688. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 May, 2015

     Hi Lorene. You're quite right that, regarding the scientific claim that the Earth moves for example, we don't believe this simply because of a majority vote. We believe it because science has produced supporting evidence to back its claims. I gather that you support this way of gaining knowledge. But at the same time you criticise us for embracing science and critical thinking in evaluating Ken Ring's claims, saying that we're 'just one of the sheep... People like you are lost'.

     All we've done is to look critically at Ring's claims using reason and science and see if they stack up. And all we've found are failed predictions, deceptions, lies, intimidation, insults and an unhealthy obsession with astrology. Ring has categorically refused to allow scientists to analyse his data, he claims that it's not even possible, he's refused to show how he arrived at his claims for accuracy, and he's threatened us and others with legal action for openly discussing his many failures and bogus claims.

     You say you agree with Ken Ring. Do you agree with Ring when he claims that dolphins and whales might beam sonar signals to the Moon, that stars are rocks in the sky, that modern humans lived with the dinosaurs, that Los Angeles is a US city without skyscrapers and that ice needs to be 4°C to thaw? Do you agree with Ring when he calls us 'misogynists' and 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist Nazis' simply because we challenge his claims? Do you agree that, as I write this, Ring's prediction of 'Very warm and dry' weather must be right, even though it's bitterly cold and we've had snow, hail, rain and wind? Do you agree with Ring that on the morning of 20 March, 2011, Christchurch was hit by a big earthquake that was 'another for the history books', even though no one else noticed? Do agree with Ring that your cat's character and destiny can be discovered by reading its paw?

     Or do you just agree with Ring in his view that (like Galileo according to you), we're threatening him because we're lost sheep? The reality is that Galileo did indeed suffer threats, but from the dogmatic, close-minded Church (ie religion), not from scientists or skeptics. And contrary to what Ring falsely claims, we have never threatened him or his family. The only people that fear honest inquiry into their publicly made claims are those with something to hide.

     You say that 'Most of the planet is liquid and the moon controls the tides you know its happening but you can't physically see it'. Actually I can easily observe the ocean tides, although not the land tides, and the planet doesn't have to be liquid for there to be tides. The Moon is solid and yet it has much greater land tides than does the Earth. And how do we know this? It's because scientists discovered, measured and explained these land tides. Ring obtains all his scientific information from scientists, it wasn't astrologers that discovered the land tides. Ring has contributed zilch to explaining the universe. All his study has been for nothing. Well perhaps not nothing, he is richer because of his business.

     You write that 'Ken doesn't predict he studies the lunar patterns because he has the patience to study, see outside the box'. But what does Ken do after he's studied the lunar patterns? He produces and sells weather predictions and also offers earthquake predictions for free. His business is all about him making predictions. For years his almanac was called 'Ken Ring's Predict Weather', and his website is quite clearly called 'predictweather'. If he was just patiently studying in his kitchen and not making worthless and misleading predictions in his books, on the Internet and in the media, then the world would have never have heard of Ken Ring. Regardless of Ring's silly talk of opinions when denying his failures, he is most definitely making predictions.

     The reality is Lorene that Ken Ring has a pathetic record in predicting, forecasting, or opining the weather and earthquakes, and his view of many scientific and historical facts is totally bogus. Rather than merely saying you agree with Ring, perhaps you could be a little more informative as to the predictions or claims that you believe Ring has got right, and why? Ring himself refuses to be forthcoming with supporting evidence for his method or his outlandish claims, so what can you do to help him out? Rather than simply be a Ken clone and insult us, do what Ken won't or can't do, and explain why we've misunderstood his work.

689. Comment by Graham, 27 May, 2015

     Hi John. I'm sure you're sick and tired of having to rebut the same argument from Ken over and over. I'm sure he really believes that if you keep repeating a lie it becomes true.

     But since Ken respects the word of John Flamsteed, then perhaps your rebuttal need only take the form of a cut and paste of his 1647 criticism of astrology. Just by replacing the word "astrologer" with "Ken Ring" and it works as a damning critique of his business. And if Ken is in any doubt about whose side Mr Flamsteed is on, highlight the line "Also, astrological predictions of the weather are no less ridiculous..."

690. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 May, 2015

     Thanks Graham. Excellent work on finding Flamsteed's manuscript. He certainly makes many valid points and quite correctly dismisses astrology as nonsense. I'll quote his final paragraph:

     'Since astrology finds no natural grounds to sustain it, and since experience shows us its falsehood, I hope my readers will withdraw any credit they may have given to this imposture. As for astrologers, I have no hope of reforming them because their profession — no matter how foolish and opposite to reason — is too lucrative. My reward for this plain speaking will no doubt be the title of "ignorant and peevish".'

     Even in 1647 (and even further back in 1495), intelligent and honest men could see that astrology didn't work or make sense and that astrologers, like Ring today, were simply ripping people off. And interesting Flamsteed recognised that for criticising astrology he would be labelled 'ignorant and peevish' by astrologers, and again nothing has changed today, except that Ring has added 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist Nazi' to the 'ignorant and peevish' insult.

     I like too that Flamsteed did indeed mention that 'astrological predictions of the weather are no less ridiculous', so Ring can't argue that Flamsteed was referring to something other than what he does.

     Regarding Ring's lies, maybe it's like that 'Betelgeuse' movie, say it three times and it becomes real. But seriously, I think that Ring is certainly desperate enough to believe that if he continually repeats his lies then some people new to the discussion will believe him and the rest of us will simply give up in frustration. Since Ring is pathetic at doing research, no doubt he initially believes that some of his claims are true. His inexcusable failure arises when he is shown to be in error but he continues to repeat what he now knows to be false. We've seen it before with the likes of Newton, Copernicus and Descartes, so even after reading Flamsteed's manuscript Ring will continue to insist that he was an astrologer. That's the trouble with running a scam, you have to keep pushing the lies and just hope your clients won't notice.

     When I was searching for info on Flamsteed I also found an abstract for an article on astrology that I thought was spot on:

     'Astrology.

     Carlson S.

     Abstract

     As a divinatory practice, astrology is without equal in both its colorful history and modern day popularity. Astrology has grown, over thousands of years, into a huge and ornate superstructure that lacks a central design. Although astrology has been dimly veiled by its occult mystique for centuries, the light of modern day inquiry has shown its substance to be mostly illusionary and revealed its foundation to be the shakiest possible: that of self-justification and anecdotal evidence. Despite the many claims of its practitioners and followers, extensive investigation has revealed astrology to be a great teetering monument to human gullibility.'

691. Comment by Jamie, 29 May, 2015

     Hi John, on 22nd May Ken Ring tweeted:

     "Todays storm in North Island heralds earthquake risk to NZ on 28 May.
     Moon contributions will be rapid air pressure rise, apogee, neap tide."

     Well, nothing happened yesterday. The "Moon Method" fails once again.

     I also note that he didn't mention 28th May as being a risk day in his May Newsletter:

     "May activity times: 2nd, 6th-9th, 14th-15th, 18th, 23rd-24th, 29th-30th..."

692. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 29 May, 2015

     Apparently Jamie, earthquakes have better things to do than fall into line with Ring's horoscopes. Like all 'good' scammers Ring relies on the fact that only those skeptical of his claims will bother to check whether his predictions come true and if they match or contradict other predictions he may have made. Of course Ring will remind us that it's not just the 'Max Risk' dates that we should worry about, since he insists on a window of several days and up to a week either side of these dates. But as you point out Jamie, why aren't his 'Max Risk' dates the same between different media? And since this NEW prediction for the 28th was only made 6 days previously, how can Ring seriously keep describing himself as a 'long range forecaster'? He has repeated reminded us that long range means a warning issued a year or two ago, not 6 days.

     And note that for every week of the month of May (and it's the same with all the other months), Ring wants his followers to be in a constant state of fear. There's not a single day in the year when they can relax a little. If that life-threatening earthquake didn't happen last week then it will be this week, and if not this week then next week, and so on and so forth. Ring claims to be helping vulnerable people that are fearful of earthquakes, when all he is doing is keeping their fear alive. Every bogus quake warning issued by Ring merely re-traumatises people that have experienced a serious earthquake and scares those that haven't but can still imagine the terror. Warnings are important and necessary if they are based on credible information, since the psychological harm they might cause is outweighed by the real harm they might prevent, but bogus warnings that are issued for every week of the year and based on nothing but worthless astrological charts are totally irresponsible. Learning how to act if a quake happens, constructing strong buildings and having an emergency kit are important, but that's where it should stop. If Ring really wants to help people that live in dread of devastating earthquakes, then he should tell them the truth. That in NZ they are rare, that you are far, far more likely to die in a motor accident than an earthquake, and that his ancient soothsaying method can no more predict earthquakes than it can predict Hollywood's Oscars. And after assuring people that they are worrying unnecessarily about the wrong thing, he should shut up.

     Then next year Ring will have become one of those people that when they're mentioned, the opening question is always, Whatever happened to...

693. Comment by Jamie, 31 May, 2015

     Hi John, Ken was very quiet after his failed prediction of an earthquake occurring in NZ on 28th May. But I see he has just surfaced again on twitter claiming the moon is once again up to it's dastardly deeds, striking Japan with a powerful 7.8 mag quake...

     "Just now, a 7.8mag earthquake in Japan region. Moon right above Japan as it is happening. In NZ we got a 5.4mag in Collingwood at 11.30pm."

     Ridiculous. What does Ken suggest we do? Duck for cover anytime the moon is in the sky?

     Out of curiosity, I decided to check his claim that the moon was "right above Japan as it is happening". Anyone with an internet connection can do this, free of charge.

     I checked the location and timing of the Japan quake on USGS. Then, using free astronomy software "Stellarium" (download here), I entered the location and time of the quake ( 11:23:02 UTC, LAT 27deg,49'52.32", LONG 140deg,29'35.52").

     Here is a screenshot of the nightsky view showing the horizon marked in green and azimuthal gridlines. You can see that the moon is no where near zenith (the point directly above the observer), and is actually at about 50 degrees altitude (with zenith being at 90 degrees). So a little over halfway between the horizon and zenith.

     I'd like Ken to explain why the quake didn't occur 10 days earlier on the 20th May at 4:27UTC when the moon was much closer to zenith (see this screenshot for that time and at the same location). By the way, I checked USGS and there were no significant earthquakes in Japan on 20th May.

     You can also see the Moon's distance from earth on the screenshots — the moon was much closer to earth on the 20th.
     20th May — 374568km
     30th May — 392389km.

     Using Ken's "logic", the earthquake should have occurred 10 days earlier.

     Oh, and I couldn't find any reference to a 5.4 quake in NZ yesterday on Geonet.

     Give it up Ken. Your methods don't work.

694. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 May, 2015

     Oh Jamie, Jamie, Jamie! There's your problem right there. You're not supposed to doubt the Great Soothsayer and check his proclamations. You need to have faith my son. Where would the silly beliefs of Christians be if ancient people had said, 'You followed a star you say, and it stopped right above a stable in Bethlehem? Hmmmm... you don't mind if I seek confirmation of that do you, you know, before I become a believer?'

     But seriously, it doesn't surprise me that you've caught Ring fudging the truth once again. Ignorant of that quote that says that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it, Ring still doesn't expect people to check his claims, and certainly doesn't want us to, since it exposes his lies. For years now we've seen Ring claim bogus astronomical alignments and invent quakes that never happened, all in a pretence to hide the embarrassing fact that he missed another major disaster. And not that Ring or his followers can grasp the full implication inherent in his warnings, but yes, it does mean that they should be ducking for cover whenever the Moon is in the sky.

     The trouble with Ring's silly belief is that the Moon is ALWAYS somewhere in the sky, always over some point on the Earth. Its gravity, which Ring claims causes the quakes, never switches off, so quakes should be happening over much of the Earth's surface. As I've said before, quakes should be rolling around the Earth like a Mexican wave as the Earth rotates under the Moon. Ring argues that the Moon at perigee causes the worst quakes, but by his theory the quakes should still be happening all the time, it's just their intensity and frequency that should be varying as the distance to the Moon varies. Since the Moon is always there, always pulling on the Earth, scientists should clearly see a correlation between the Moon's position and quake frequency and intensity. But they don't, and Ring, try as he might, can't find and produce the evidence that would support his claims. He's had as much luck as those hunting for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and Noah's Ark.

     And Ring's belief that Moon can literally be 'right above Japan' is as ridiculous as silly Christians believing that a star could be right above a stable in Bethlehem. The Moon can certainly be at it's highest point in the sky when a quake happens somewhere below, but it's at that same point for country after country as the Earth revolves. Ring can't explain why the Moon causes a massive quake at one specific point in one specific country (eg Christchurch in NZ) and ignores the rest of that country and all the countries before and after. Imagine an Islamic State terrorist lining up 100 prisoners and then, starting at one end of the line, he aims and fires his machine gun, slowly moving his aim and hail of bullets along the line until he reaches the other end. Realistically all 100 prisoners will have been hit by several bullets and will be dead or dying. But if Ring were to apply his grasp of physics to this scenario, then he would likely predict that only one prisoner, maybe number 67, would be hit and killed, the rest would be unharmed and oblivious to the hail of bullets that were being fired directly at them. That's because he's using ancient astrological physics, not modern physics. Just as the religious argue that their beliefs don't have to make sense, Ring argues likewise. You just have to have faith and believe. Just as Christians believe Jesus could walk on water and Muslims believe Mohammed rode to heaven on his horse, Ring believes an evil Moon can stalk the Earth and strike at its enemies while passing over its friends. And unfortunately no appeal to evidence, reason and common sense will stop simple minds from preferring simple explanations over a reality that is a little bit more complex.

695. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Jun, 2015

     What must Ken Ring's world be like? What must it be like to reside physically in the 21st century but to live in a fantasy world based on medieval beliefs? What must it be like to have strangers point at you on the street and giggle, to be treated like the village idiot, knowing that, to keep the money coming in, you must keep telling the lies and be despised for it? But with a scam to run, new information and a prodding conscience urging him to do the honest thing can not be allowed to divert Ring from his task.

     Back on May 21st and again on May 25th Ken Ring corresponded with us, beginning his comments with the heading: 'Expectations in weather science'. He started off by comparing what he does to what a doctor does, and we explained why this analogy is bogus. He then again claimed or implied that the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Laplace, Flamsteed and Newton etc were all astrologers, and that many of them used astrology to produce long range weather almanacs. And once again we reminded Ken that none of these people were astrologers, and we have supported our view, unlike Ring. We also ridiculed his laughable belief that if it weren't for humans discovering astrology in the dim past and using it effect progress, we would apparently all still be living in caves and wearing animal furs.

     So, on being informed that his heroes were not astrologers after all, what does Ken do? Does he respond with his evidence that argues these scientists were indeed astrologers, and that we are mistaken? No. Does he reply with an embarrassed but honest admission that he had been mislead and misinformed? Again no. Ring makes no reply at all. Reason would suggest that his embarrassed silence is because he accepts that you can't argue with historical facts. So, accepting that he can't show that these scientists were astrologers, does Ring admit, at least to himself, that he would be lying to keep publicly insisting that they were? Probably yes. But does this realisation stop him from going forth and telling these same lies again to a new audience? No, not at all. After reading why he would be knowingly lying by continuing to maintain that Flamsteed, Copernicus, Newton et al. are astrologers, a couple of days later (May 29th) he takes all his comments to us and repeats them almost word for word in an article on his own website with the same heading: 'Expectations in weather science'. Not one name was removed from his list of scientists. None of his outrageous claims were even watered down. Following his discussion with us, and being unable to refute our evidence, Ring would have known all too well that he was being deceitful, untruthful and promoting a falsehood, and that any informed person would know that he was a pathological liar. But that doesn't matter to Ring, since he's not promoting his scam to informed people. The gullible people he targets will know next to nothing about what the likes of Flamsteed and Newton actually did, let alone whether they were astronomers or astrologers. Aren't they the same thing?

     Many years ago, on first hearing of Ring and his arguments, I initially had some respect for him since it sounded plausible that the Moon's gravity might have some influence on the weather, earthquakes and the menstrual cycle of women etc. But on investigating we discovered that these ideas have been well researched, and not only is there no connection, certainly not one that can be acted on prediction-wise, there are many reasons why Ring's ideas don't even make sense at all. To a medieval mindset Ring's claims sound obviously true, but then so too do claims about witchcraft and gods walking on water. To a 21st century mindset however, one backed by evidence and supported by reason, Ring's claims are nothing but hogwash supported by lies. And now we have this recent example of Ring clearly discovering that his claims are wrong, or at the very least unsupported by any evidence, and yet he completely ignores this embarrassing reality and again repeats his lies to his cult. Clearly we can have no respect for someone that acts so deviously. Regardless of what connection there might be between the weather, earthquakes and the Moon, Ring's attempts at exposing it are nothing but shameful and despicable. Ken Ring does for scientific inquiry what the inquisitions did for the Church.

696. Comment by Ken Ring, 01 Jun, 2015

     Oh for heaven's sake get over yourselves.

     I said 28-30 May. I said west coast of NZ. There was a 5.5mag in Westport [screenshot here] and a 5.4 in Collingwood.

     Also a myriad of smaller shakes in NZ. How totally disappointed you are that another warning was accurate.

     There was also a 7.8mag or an 8.3 in Japan, a 5 in California (I had suggested Taiwan and Mexico on FB, so a bit out there). It has been an earthquake -rich interval, as predicted

     At least check things out before you rave on with your private war!!

     You seem to think you are being ripped off. But all my earthquake research is done free. So where's the harm?

     If you don't like what I say, DON'T READ IT, AS I DIDN'T WRITE IT FOR YOU

697. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Jun, 2015

     Oh for heaven's sake Ken, you did NOT say '28-30 May'. At least read your own newsletter, we've underlined your prediction since you seem to have trouble finding it:

     'May activity times: 2nd, 6th-9th, 14th-15th, 18th, 23rd-24th, 29th-30th...'

     You're just making a fool of yourself with such blatant lies. I'm not sure why you mention the 'west coast of NZ', or where you might have predicted this, since the idea was for you to defend your claim that there was 'a 5.4 in Collingwood'. Producing a screenshot for a different quake achieves nothing. Where is the screenshot of the Collingwood quake and a link to the data on the GeoNet site?

     And yes you were wrong, or as you say, 'a bit out', when you apparently predicted quakes on FB for Taiwan and Mexico. Presumably they were all under their tables while the quakes were striking in Japan and California, where their citizens thought they were safe. And why did you put out a quake warning for Taiwan and Mexico on FB and not on Twitter or in your newsletter? How many sources must your followers follow to keep up with your warnings, and how should they behave when FB Ken warns of a quake but Twitter Ken doesn't?

     Regarding your free earthquake warnings, you ask 'where's the harm?' You can still harm people Ken without taking their money, since you cause your followers to be in a constant state of fear of the next big quake. Unlike your weather almanac which causes real financial harm, your worthless earthquake warnings cause real psychological harm. Like telling a naive child that God will keep them safe and that the Devil will get them if they sin, you are creating false hope and unnecessary dread with your silly warnings. It's nothing short of a form of mental abuse. Lying to people, deceiving people, telling them bullshit, saying that you can help them when you can't, these are all things that you do Ken and that's where the harm is.

     As for your angry conclusion: 'If you don't like what I say, DON'T READ IT, AS I DIDN'T WRITE IT FOR YOU', we aren't the sort that simply ignore people pushing silly beliefs. Like you Ken, a sexually abusive priest or an Islamic State terrorist or a bogus psychic medium might all say that if we don't like what they do then we should just move on and let them be, but where devious, ignorant people are physically, mentally or financially harming others then we feel it is our ethical duty to expose this harm. As long as you publicly continue with your nonsense Ken, we will continue to expose it.

     To stop our ongoing analysis of you claims, the way we see it you have two options, prove to the world that your method actually works, in which case we will switch to promoting you, or stop making your unsupported claims.

698. Comment by Jamie, 02 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, I'd suggest all subscribers to Ken's newsletter in the Dunedin area, should write him a letter of complaint.

     June 1st, 11:17pm. 4.7 magnitude quake 30km west of Dunedin at a depth of 7km.
     http://www.geonet.org.nz/quakes/region/newzealand/2015p409380
     http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nerves-wrecked-now-dunedin-shaken-strong-earthquake-6327962

     Those poor unsuspecting Otago subscribers got a nasty surprise. It seems Ken has completed missed this one in his Newsletter "risk dates".

     "May activity times: 2nd, 6th-9th, 14th-15th, 18th, 23rd-24th, 29th-30th...
     Times when the moon gains speed: 7-20 May.
     June activity times: 3rd-4th, 8th-10th, 17th, 22nd, 28th
     Times when the moon gains speed: 4-16 June."
     

699. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Jun, 2015

     Poor Ken. Everyone can experience a losing streak, when simply nothing goes right, and the 21st century is apparently going to be Ken's losing streak. I'd advise him to just sit it out. Or at the very least he should set up a shrine to Poseidon, the ancient god of earthquakes who was originally known as 'the earthshaker'. Poseidon must be real since Ring insists that the ancients had knowledge that we modern folk have lost. Some serious supplication on Ring's part might break his losing streak.

     Unfortunately by all accounts Ring is not going sit the century out, cease his worthless proclamations and go back to the drawing board, even though he breaks numerous (empty) promises to do so if his predictions fail. For example, in an article entitled 'How To Predict Earthquakes', Ring assured us that 'if I am incorrect in my dates then I am willing to bow my head in defeat and go back to the drawing boaed' [sic]. Clearly that was just another lie. And perhaps this is why Ring hasn't bothered with a shrine to Poseidon, being a god he would see right through all the lies. You can't scam a god.

700. Comment by Jamie, 02 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, poor Ken indeed.

     There was nothing interesting on the telly tonight, so I thought I'd analyse Ken's "Earthquake risk times" chart in his May newsletter.

     I've created my own chart and tried to keep to a similar format. Click here to view it.

     I've kept his first 2 columns which show the risk dates and "upper limits of magnitudes" as he explains in his newsletter:

     "The figures below under "Max Risk" refer to upper limits of magnitudes world wide and not just NZ... Purple indicates greater potential risk times, bold characters even more."

     Next, I've added my own 2 columns and entered the largest quake magnitude recorded by USGS for each day in May in the first column headed "USGS_MAX" and the largest quake magnitude recorded by Geonet in the next column headed "NZ_MAX". Note — both USGS and Geonet data listed the quakes in UTC time.

     You can see just how worthless Ken's predictions are of a "4+" or "5+" occurring somewhere in the world on any given day. There will always be one somewhere.

     I've also worked out the average magnitude across all "risk days" and compared it to the average across all non-risk days. Results are shown at the bottom of the chart.

     Note — I've included one day either side of Ken's risk days, as he often suggests his subscribers do this. (Well actually he sometimes says up to a week either side, but that would leave no dates left on the calendar!).

     In summary, I'd call May a complete failure for poor old Ken. His risk dates had smaller quakes on average then the other dates.

     Let's see how he does in June.

701. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Jun, 2015

     Oh excellent work Jamie. As you show, there are sizeable quakes happening all the time, and if your quake predictions are spread 'world wide and not just NZ', as Ring's are, then you will appear all-knowing. And if you just look at Ring's predictions for his 'Max Risk' days then he is absolutely correct for every prediction he makes. This is because of the flawed way Ring has written his magnitude predictions. Clearly he has no idea what the + symbol means. On the 15th he said the 'Max Risk' would be 4+, which, to be technically correct, means that he is predicting a quake of magnitude 4 or above will happen somewhere in the world. And it did, a magnitude 6.0 quake happened, which is 1,000 times more powerful than a 4.0 earthquake. But clearly there is a massive difference between a mag 4 quake and a mag 6 quake, it's like someone saying that your house repairs might cost around a $1,000 and you eventually get a bill for a million dollars. But this is what Ring's figure does, it provides a minimum value but no maximum value, even thought he labels it 'Max Risk'.

     But when he writes 4+ clearly what Ring means to imply with his figures is that a quake of around magnitude 4 will happen, but it will not be as high as 5, or else he would have written 5 as he does on other days. And this is what his readers can reasonably be expected to take his figures to mean. His heading 'Max Risk' also implies that 4 will be the maximum value, it will not go to 5. But again, technically the + symbol means and/or above, such as when a pub says you must be 18+ to enter. A minimum value is stated but the maximum is left open. What Ring should be putting in his 'Max Risk' column is 'plus or minus', eg 4 ± 0.5, not 4+. But again, Ring's ignorance around maths and science means he has probably never heard of 'plus or minus'. And since we've pointed out his embarrassing error, it no doubt means he won't correct it, since that would be an admission that a mistake was made.

     It is quite revealing Jamie how wrong Ring was with his predictions. Just looking at the 11 dates for which he predicted quakes, the quakes that did occur, and that everyone expected to occur, were almost all considerably more massive than Ring predicted, so Ring missed all the bigger quakes. But as you discovered, all the non-risk days, the days that people can reasonably expect to be safe, to be free of quakes, all these days had on average quakes that were larger than the hide-under-the-table days. To have got maximum value from Ring's predictions his readers should have done just the opposite to what he recommended. He couldn't have been more wrong. It's almost as if he's simply guessing.

     Of course Ring will argue that he not predicting quakes, he's simply pointing out trends, but the trend that his chart displayed was clearly wrong. The real trend is the one that your data showed Jamie, that when considering the entire planet, there are sizeable quakes happening all the time. But that trend has no local predictive value, if you can't say concisely when and where a massive quake will strike, then talk of a trend is worthless. When Ring talks of predicting quakes he gets it wrong, when he talks of trends he gets it wrong. Perhaps he should stick to simply talking about when quakes happened in the past and stop looking to the future.

702. Comment by Jamie, 03 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, I stumbled across this page on Ken's website. It has handy links to all the back copies of his Newsletter.

     So I thought — why not check his "Earthquake Risk Times" progress so far this year?

     Click here to view the results for January - April. I've worked out the average max quakes for days listed as "Risk days" and compared them to all remaining days. The results are (January-May 2015):

     Average NZ_MAX on Ken's risk dates = 4.13
     Average NZ_MAX on all other dates = 4.25
     Average USGS_MAX on Ken's risk dates = 5.71
     Average USGS_MAX on all other dates = 6.02

     Not good results so far this year Ken!

     I also did a test back in 2011 and got similar results. (ie: slightly larger average outside his risk dates).

     The results in 2011 were:

     The average daily max quake recorded by USGS on days highlighted in Ken Ring's column was 5.808.
     The average daily max quake recorded by USGS on all other days was 5.874.
     The average daily max quake recorded by GNS on days highlighted in Ken Ring's column was 4.254.
     The average daily max quake recorded by GNS on all other days was 4.304.

     I think any logical person would realise that this is just bad luck on Ken's part. It would be just as likely to be slightly in Ken's favour. The fact is he's just guessing and there is no noticeable correlation between what the moon is doing and earthquakes. If there was it would scream out in the data.

     If these charts can help just one Ken Ring follower come to the realisation that his claims are bogus, then I think this has been worthwhile.

703. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Jun, 2015

     Thanks very much for the extra data Jamie. Another nail in the astrology coffin. Ring states that major quakes will likely happen on the days he highlights, with the clear implication being that all the other days will be quake free, that you can range far and wide from the safety of your table. Your data Jamie clearly shows this to be nonsense. The quakes that Ring is warning us of are happening EVERY single day, both in NZ and worldwide. Ring's predictions are as silly as him putting out a table where he highlights 13 days of July that he thinks the Sun will rise.

     Of course with a little tweaking Ring could actually claim great accuracy. I think there were only 4 days over those 5 entire months where the max quake worldwide was in the mag 4 range, every other day had a quake that was mag 5+. That's 147 days out of 151 days, so Ring should have simply put a 'Max Risk' figure of 5+ next to every day of every month and he would have been right 97% of the time. If he had tagged every single day with 4+, ie a quake of mag 4 or above will happen somewhere, then he would have had 100% accuracy. The down side with this foolproof prediction method is that tagging every single day with a vague but all-encompassing 4+ value is that even his dim-witted followers might smell a rat.

     And isn't it strange that Ring vociferously insists that his method can't be analysed, and yet Jamie you've shown that it clearly can be. When Ring says his predictions can't be analysed, what he really means to say is that he doesn't want them to be analysed.

704. Comment by Daryl, 04 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, I though Ken was going to stop predicting quakes? He said so himself. He couldn't be going back on his word could he? What happened to needing the team he required, with the geologist etc? Didn't he says some years ago it would take him 3 days of calculation to predict a measly 3 earthquakes and he didn't have the time or funding?

     Good work Jamie, I'd call May a complete failure for Ken too. What did Ken have to say about May in an email exchange a month or so back?

     'This may be one of my fail months, who knows?'

705. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Jun, 2015

     You're quite right Daryl, I'd forgotten, but Ring has indeed asserted, more than once, that it would take a team of experts and extra funding to accurately predict earthquakes. Let's recap, on one occasion Ring claimed that:

     'It doesn't need a supercomputer to work out where and when earthquakes will appear. You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team... I've proven it can be done'

     On an earlier occasion Ring claimed that prediction would require

     'cooperation between geologists, astronomers, and probably astrologers'

     On another occasion Ring claimed that the way to predict earthquakes

     'is for astronomers, astrologers, vulcanologists and meteorologists to sit down at the same table with geologists'.

     Then on a later occasion Ring tells us that quake prediction would require

     'a willingness for geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, seismologists and astrometeorologists to work together for a common goal'.

     The first thing that is clear from Ring's many comments is that he knows and admits that he can't predict earthquakes by himself, he requires the assistance of scientists. The second thing we glean from his comments is that Ring is not at all sure which experts he really needs, the makeup of his team changes every time he mentions it. Ring, who labels himself in these discussions as the astrologer, goes from needing just one expert, a geologist, all the way up to needing the help of five experts: geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, seismologists and vulcanologists. Strangely, in his second comment he is not even sure whether he would be needed in the prediction team, and uncertain of his contribution, hesitantly notes that 'probably astrologers' would be required.

     So if a team of some indeterminate number is required to accurately predict earthquakes, and since Ring has never formed such a team, and based on his animosity towards scientists, never will, how is it that he has ever been able to predict a single earthquake? How can he put out his 'Earthquake Risk Times' every month in his newsletter if his prediction team has never ever got together? Well, completely contradicting his dream team scenario, Ring has described elsewhere what it actually takes to predict earthquakes, and there's not a scientist in sight, it only takes a hardworking astrologer. Describing the work needed to make a single quake prediction, Ring said that,

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

     And as you say Daryl, Ring did indeed say that having made one prediction, he wouldn't do it again because of the work involved and the lack of funding. So without his dream team and unable to put in the time to do it himself, where are Ring's monthly quake predictions coming from? With no access to a team of scientists, that means it's not a scientific source, and since he's not putting in the hours on his astrologically-based computer program, that means it's not an astrological source either. So what does that leave? Throwing darts labelled 4+, 5+ etc at a calendar while blindfolded? Reading the paws of his neighbour's cat?

     And since a couple of weeks ago Ring was again in denial mode and said , 'If I believed I was an astrologer I would say so', let's reiterate that when he made the above comments, Ring was clearly implying that he was the astrologer in his dream team.

     As we've stated before, one of Ring's main handicaps, besides the obvious silly astrology one, is that he forgets the lies he has told, and thus is soon telling a new story that completely contradicts a previous one. Scammers need to remember what fables they have told and learn to be consistent, but Ring has yet to learn that lesson. Which of course is a good thing as far as we're concerned, since it exposes his deception and harms his business.

706. Comment by Sam, 05 Jun, 2015

     Hi John,

     'A computer programme is required, astrologically-based and with fault lines loaded'.

     But Ken Ring claims repeatedly that fault lines don't cause earthquakes. I wonder what he needs the fault lines for?

     "Earthquakes can and do go where they choose. If there is a fault line there already, then a shake may shake that too and an observer will say the fault line was active. If there is no fault line the earthquake will make one."

     (from http://hot-topic.co.nz/ken-ring-hes-wrong-about-everything/, since I can't find the original quote.)
707. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Jun, 2015

     Hi Sam. You're quite correct that in the last few years Ring has indeed taken the stance that plate tectonics and fault lines do not cause earthquakes. In his 2012 article, 'Traditional Earthquake myths exposed', he wrote that 'Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa. Earthquakes cause "rubbing together" of tectonic plates, not vice versa'. While we have a copy of his article, we can't provide a link to it on Ring's website since he cunningly removes all articles that become an embarrassment to him.

     But it's not clear that Ring has always dismissed plate tectonics, before he started regularly predicting earthquakes he apparently did believe that the movement of tectonic plates caused quakes. So that is probably why he thought he had to take into account where the fault lines were, and add them to his astrologically-based computer program. At that time Ring seemingly did think that movement along fault lines caused earthquakes, the difference with science being that Ring however thought that it was the passing Moon that 'could apply enough force to separate tectonic plates'. The plates weren't moving and causing quakes along fault lines due to internal forces but due to the Moon's gravity. I guess we can say that according to Ring's pesudoscience, if the Moon wasn't out there then the plates wouldn't move at all.

     This change in view is another example of Ring forgetting the stories he has told in the past, and now Sam we can probably assume that Ring's astrologically-based computer program no longer has a 'fault line' component installed. As Ring now says in the quote you provided, 'Earthquakes can and do go where they choose'. If Ring's earthquakes could talk, they might paraphrase a line from the movie 'Blazing Saddles':

     'Fault lines? We don't need no stinkin' fault lines!'

708. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Jun, 2015

     On the heels of Ring's earthquake prediction failures, Kiwis will have seen in the media that 'Large parts of Dunedin are underwater as heavy rainfall cause chaos in the city' [Stuff.co.nz]. Another site reports that 'MetService says 105mm of rain has fallen today [June 3] in Dunedin, breaking the single day record for the highest rainfall in the city. Another 30-40mm of rain is expected tonight'.

     And of course our infamous long range weather forecaster never saw it coming. In his June newsletter we were diredted here, where Ring made the following predictions for Dunedin and Otago:

     'GENERAL FOR JUNE
     For June overall, the North Island may be wetter than average and the South Island drier... South Island rain is generally about 5th, 10th and 28th. Canterbury may be wettest for South Island, with Otago and the Lakes the driest'.

     'Coastal Otago, Dunedin
     Average to drier, average to cloudier, average temperatures.
     Rain likely: 3rd-6th, 11th, 15th, 22nd-23rd, 26th (heaviest 5th)'

     So there you have it, according to Ring the South Island will be 'drier', Otago will be 'the driest' and Dunedin will be 'Average to drier'. No need for sandbags then?

     In case someone, yes Ken, we're looking at you, notes that it also says 'Rain likely: 3rd-6th... (heaviest 5th)', and the record breaking heavy rain arrived on the 4th, so flood causing rain was predicted, no intelligent person would expect flooding when the prediction also says that Dunedin will be 'Average to drier'. If Ring could see very heavy rain on the horizon for Dunedin why didn't he explicitly say: 3rd: Chances of heavy rain for Dunedin? And he does make very specific forecasts like this, it's not all about 'trends' as he claims elsewhere. Look at what he also predicted in his newsletter:

     'JUNE SUMMARY
     4th: Chances of heavy rain for parts of Auckland'.

     So he can be specific, he even almost got the day correct, he just got the wrong city at the wrong end of the country. But of course Ring always claims a distance window in his forecasts. So would you say that it's still close enough to claim a successful forecast, he was only a day or so and a mere thousand kilometres out after all? Maybe that's as good as we can expect an astrology forecast to be? After all, the distant Moon is a long way away compared to the measly distance between Dunedin and Auckland, so managing to hit anywhere in little old NZ is perhaps a cause for celebration in the astrology household. High fives all round!
709. Comment by Daryl, 12 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, I feel that the more of Ring's failures are exposed, the better for people to see that his method is a fantasy. It also shows his claim of 85% accuracy is a complete fabrication.

     So, from Ring's article (May 7th 2015) on his 'predict weather' site entitled 'Fickle winter weather this year' are these beauties;

     'The southern hydrolakes will be seriously low before August, prompting media speculation of a looming power crisis'.

     Rubbish.

     This screen shot from www.systemoperator.co.nz shows any risk of shortage as less than 1%.

     You can argue that August is still 6 weeks away, but that will just allow me to come back at the end of July and show how wrong you were....again.

     Yet another Gem from the bible of weather 'Fickle winter weather this year' that is shown to be demonstrably false;

     'The Indian summer conditions are expected to drift away in the last week of May, and an overdue autumn then sets in, dry for many e.g. Waikato'.

     Not only was May averagely cooler and wetter (see screen shot here), laughing in the face of your 'Indian summer' but your 'overdue Autumn' looks bogus as well, with a good dose of rain and more on the horizon.

     Here is another excerpt from the same article 'Fickle winter weather this year' I find hard to swallow.

     'This will coincide with the aphelion, the traditional situation around the first week of July, when the sun is always the furthest distance from earth for the year. It is why one of the coldest days of this year is likely to be 7 July, and may even break some 20-year records. Grass level temperatures may plunge to between minus five and ten in inland locations'.

     It may well turn out to be the coldest day of the year for NZ Ken, the moon does not whisper weather and earthquake prophecy's in my ear. Before you wrote this, did you bother to check that in 1995, a temperature of minus 21.6 was recorded in central Otago? shattering your illusion of a 20 year record being broken with minus 5 to minus 10 temperatures (of which I am sure there have already been some this year).

     I'll continue to post comments as the rest of your article is exposed by reality.

710. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Jun, 2015

     Yes Daryl, Ring's claim of 85% accuracy is a complete fabrication, and every prediction he makes does indeed demonstrate to any intelligent person that he would probably be more accurate by reading chicken entrails. He surely couldn't be any worse.

     Note also that Ring mentions ' the aphelion, the traditional situation around the first week of July, when the sun is always the furthest distance from earth for the year', and he then immediately explains that this 'is why one of the coldest days of this year is likely to be 7 July, and may even break some 20-year records'. He clearly implies that we can expect record breaking cold days because the Sun is 'the furthest distance from earth for the year'. But Ring once again exposes his ignorance and primitive thinking since this is not the reason we have winter and cold days. Think about it, when we have winter in NZ, countries in the Northern Hemisphere have their summer and scorching hot days! If the Earth's greater distance from the Sun causes cold July days due to (presumably) less heat reaching the Earth, then why do the likes of Spain and Hawaii get hot days in July? The reality is that the northern and southern hemispheres have different seasons due to the tilt of the Earth's axis, not the varying distance to the Sun as Ring implies. Of course the ancient astrologers that Ring idolises and parrots didn't know this, so it's not surprising that he makes such wrongheaded claims.

711. Comment by Daryl, 15 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, good point, I spent last July in South France and it was boiling hot the whole time!
     Another example of pseudo-science. It sounds plausible, but if you think about it for just a second......!

712. Comment by Ben, 15 Jun, 2015

     I like discussions /arguments that lead somewhere; where there is at least some chance of common ground. This discussion is circular and if frankly tedious. We have KR spouting his theories and predictions. You and others then debunk his nonsense so he comes back with more and claims you have misrepresented him. Frankly if KR is so certain of himself I do not know why he bothers dealing with sceptics. There are many things on which I hold strong views such as Christianity but I cannot be bothered debating them when I know I am not going to change my stance and where the other party is equally entrenched. It is not a matter of right or wrong; it is a matter of futility.

     Why don't you draw a line under the discussion and turn to something more fruitful like abduction by aliens? Do you really get any pleasure in having to say the same thing time after time? It seems to me like an exquisite form of torture. However if it gives you pleasure who am I to interfere.

713. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 15 Jun, 2015

     Hi Ben. We don't for one moment think that Ring will ever change his stance or admit to a single error or failed prediction, so this isn't why we challenge him. While it may appear that we are engaged in a futile debate with a zealous believer, we are not writing for the believer but for the unseen people that might be following the debate. If we were merely trying to enlighten Ring we would converse directly and privately with him, and not publish our correspondence on the Internet. But we're not trying to convert Ring, we're trying to warn his potential clients, and one of the ways this can be done is to use Ring's own silly arguments to expose how ignorant and/or duplicitous he is.

     We'd imagine that most intelligent people that are skeptical of Ring's claims will search for answers, and on reading our arguments exposing his nonsense, will from then on simply ignore any future claims he makes. One reading will make them immune, they won't need to follow the ongoing debate between Ring and 'Silly Beliefs'. Our pages on Ken Ring are for newbies looking for answers about Ring's predictions, and the ongoing debates are for the few that get a good giggle from some new nonsense Ring has spouted.

     We could stop commenting on Ring's latest failures, but this is exactly want he wants. Ring no doubt views us as a nemesis, his very own Moriarty. Thus we have a social responsibility to keep him engaged. If not us, then who? Every minute he spends defending his claims is a minute he's not spending duping new clients, and every silly or deceptive comment he's forced to make in his defence is yet another nail in his coffin. You wonder why a confident Ring bothers responding to what we skeptics say, but unlike most people with silly beliefs, Ring is utterly reliant on his to make him money. If someone believes that fairies are real but no one else does, or they're the only Muslim in their neighbourhood, they can happily live with being a sole believer, but Ring desperately needs others to literally buy into his belief for him to live happily. Thus Ring feels compelled to respond to every criticism of his business, to try and suppress the negative press. Unfortunately for Ring, in our view his responses only make things worse, but then his silence would be seen by many as a sign of defeat, that his claims were indeed bogus and he is at a loss of how to respond. Think of the Vatican and the child abuse scandal, when they refused to respond to questions they were condemned for their arrogant silence, and the few that did respond were condemned for their pathetic excuses. Because they were guilty, either way they lost in the eyes of the public. Likewise with Ring, keep quiet or speak up, either way he loses.

     We think it's important to keep reminding the public that Ring is talking nonsense, otherwise he will slowly revert back into the respected scientist that much of the public used to think he was. Let's remember that not so long ago his opinions were regularly sought by TV, radio and newspapers, and that's why he caused such a furore around the Canterbury earthquakes. Where else have we seen an astrologer debating with seismologists on primetime TV? Ring gained public legitimacy because he was ignored by the experts.

     Look at the so-called Moon landing hoax. We think that many people believe in a hoax because most astronomers and the likes of NASA did nothing to debunk the hoax, thinking that it was too stupid to bother commenting on, with some arguing that any response would merely suggest that there was a genuine debate over whether it actually happened. Of course this didn't stop the conspiracy theorists making their TV programs and writing their books, and this is what the public got to see, and from the scientists, nothing. So the public got to hear all the arguments as to why it was a hoax and just silence from the people that knew what the truth was. The scientists naively assumed that people would see through the arguments, but of course many didn't. Most conspiracy theories, from alien abductions to chemtrails, exist because the experts that could readily debunk them never bother, thinking that it is beneath them to discuss such silly beliefs. Thus we have many people looking for answers and all they can find are those put out by the conspiracy theorists, our TV programs, bookshops and the Internet are flooded by them.

     Many people believe Ring's claims because they sound plausible; the Moon's gravity might cause major earthquakes and the female menstrual cycle, it might influence the weather, Copernicus and Newton might have been an astrologers, and Ring might be a scientist, a mathematician and a psychologist, but all these claims are in fact bogus, although not obviously so. The public can not be relied on to research Ring's claims, many will simply believe him, unaware that he will lie to their face. The other night I just glimpsed one of those TV ads from the earthquake 'Get ready and get thru' campaign. There was a cartoon animation of a large Moon apparently shaking the Earth. I could be wrong and I'm waiting to watch it again, but it appeared to imply that the proximity of the Moon causes earthquakes! Now where might they have got that idea from? When Ring's astrological nonsense is being pushed on national TV ads watched by adults and children, then clearly many people in responsible positions are still being fooled by Ring. Thus it is not yet time to draw a line under the discussion, since we don't want a world where our kids blame the Moon for earthquakes, and then grow up and buy his book of horoscopes.

     But all that said, we would love to have a discussion on alien abduction, psychic healing, Bigfoot or gods, but even though there are a lot of people that believe in these things, they apparently don't want to explain and defend their beliefs. We've criticised the 'Sensing Murder' mediums but not one, apart from an insult from Kelvin Cruickshank, has written to defend their claims. I read a book on ghosts recently that criticised our 'Silly Beliefs' website, but the authors never once wrote to challenge our claims directly. You say you have strong views on many things, eg Christianity, and can't be bothered debating them. While I understand your reasoning, I don't enter into a debate with door-knocking evangelists, for example, to convert them, but to understand why they believe as they do and to be confident that my arguments are valid. I used to look at people that had different beliefs to me and assumed that they must have had good reasons for holding those beliefs. On talking with some of them I found that that often wasn't the case, that they often knew very little about their belief, and they happily maintained this ignorance by simply not talking with people with differing beliefs. Religious folk and alien abductees only discuss their beliefs with like-minded people and thus are never challenged in their thinking. When I say there are no gods or aliens abducting people from their beds, only people that believe there are will challenge me and question my arguments. The only people that might shake my worldview are those that disagree with it, they are the only people that might expose a flaw in my reasoning. My fellow atheists and skeptics just assure me that I'm right and then change the subject. I'm amazed that billions of people will commit their life to a god, and yet most will refuse outright to defend their belief. I'm as committed to being an atheist as these people are in their belief, but why am I the only one that is prepared to explain why? Are they afraid they can't defend their belief, but then how can someone blindly hang onto a belief that they have doubts about? Many people with what we call silly beliefs are no doubt annoyed by our comments, but isn't it strange that almost none of them are willingly to explain why we might be wrong? Although he fails to sway us, at least Ken Ring does make an attempt. I suspect that many god believers and alien abductees know that they haven't got a hope of defending their belief, they simply think, 'I can't explain it, I just know what I've experienced, and so I believe'. For me that wouldn't be enough. I'd be curious as to why others are so adamant that I was mistaken.

714. Comment by Jamie, 16 Jun, 2015

     Hi John, I read this morning (here) that the Desert Road is closed due to snow and ice. Did Ken predict this? No. In fact, he couldn't have been more wrong if he tried.

     On April 26th he tweeted

     "Snow is likely for Desert Rd before end of this week, but is unlikely to come again until briefly last week in May, then first week July."

     In this article, he desperately tries to claim a hit saying :

     "UPDATE: First snow was predicted for Ruapahu (sic) for the first week of May in this tweet of 27 April"

     Which is misleading on all levels. The timing is wrong, and he mentioned the Desert Road in his tweet not Ruapehu. There's a big difference there.

     But regardless, he was wrong saying "...unlikely to come again until briefly last week in May, then first week July.", because here we are on the 16th June (exactly mid-way between his mentioned snow timings) and the Desert is closed due to snow and ice. Plus in this article, he says:

     "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."

     To top it off, in this article, he says:

     "Despite fresh snow falling around the end of July's first week, bringing cold dry weather suitable for snowmaking, two weeks will go by on Mt Ruapehu before the area is suitable for proper skiing.........Central Plateau snowfields should still aim for an opening around 18 July even though anxiety will be building because of insufficient snow that will still be keeping Whakapapa's upper ski runs closed."

     Wrong, wrong, wrong.

     Whakapapa/Turoa are opening in 11 days on 27th June: https://www.mtruapehu.com/
     That's 3 whole weeks before Ken's prediction. Three weeks is a long time for a Ski-field operator.

     Check your ancient astrological calculations again please Ken. You must have made an error.

     Are you taking the "Wobbly Earth" factor into account? — 'Wobbly Earth Means Your Horoscope Is Wrong'

Return to Article

Add a Comment