NZ guy who predicts weather

waterways wrote: »

From another thread Ken, why don't you allow Villain to discuss here your predictions for Ireland which he has bought?
/

Because that type of analysis is intentionally vindictive, and I retain the right under intellectual property to not have my work treated in that way. What I issue is still mine, and a purchaser has bought a right to view it only and not to share it with others, in the same way as someone who buys a book is not entitled to pdf it and give it away online. Villain can discuss it with me anytime, privately if he wants to, but not in a public forum if I object. And I do.

Su Campu wrote: »

So are you refuting the results of their studies on your forecast accuracy, as per the links posted above? On what basis are these results flawed?

I make no claims of accuracy, I quote the assessments made by others. I don't chart success rates because I have no scale. I would have to spend all day every day doing it, for no return. Each person can assess for themselves how useful a forecast is, a brand of toothpaste, a car's performance, a trip to Paris.
Your renewed attempt to do a consumer analysis for purposes of warning people off either engaging with me or taking notice of my work is something I find offensive. You have joined this thread late and waded in in your usual style, which, aided and abetted by Villain, has resulted in similar discussion threads being closed in the past. Methinks this is the intention of both of you, to spread misconceptions and half-truths, quotes by others and innuendo designed to close conversations on this whole topic of moon-weather.

Su Campu wrote: »

Not at all, I've repeatedly stated over and over I have nothing against your moon-weather theory, and by you stating that I do, plus accusing me of trying to warn people off, is yourself spreading a mis-truth, to say the least. You are quoted as claiming an 80% success rate on your forecasts, yet when somebody does an indepth analysis and finds differently, you refuse to comment on it and instead start your own personal bashing. This illustrates my whole point nicely, and is the reason I will not be conversing with you any longer.

Mods, for the sake of everybody, close this thread.

Mods, you might want to look back to other threads that have gone the same way, due mostly to these two posters. They are found out. If you do close, you let such self-elected censors win. Is that what boards.ie is about? I thought it stood for discussion.

jamesoc wrote: »

what :eek: .. close the thread , lol no dont even think of it , this thread is about pure comic genius and we have a ringside seat to all this first class entertainment , yes entertainment because fiction is entertaining to most people i know .

Issuing climatic predictions that are miles off the mark over and over and over again and then denying it in the face of all evidence has destroyed ANY credibility he may have began with in the first instance , talking about digging a hole for himself , down to bedrock at this stage

People shouldn't take this stuff too seriously , its funny and just have a good laugh at it

http://www.todayfm.com/shows/weekdays/matt-cooper/Matt-Cooper-Blog/10-09-16/Ken_Ring_weather_prediction_latest.aspx?ReturnURL=%2Fshows%2Fweekdays%2Fmatt-cooper%2Fmatt-cooper-blog.aspx%3FBlogTagID%3D20fc7197-c030-4060-93cf-5ac1a2d4dd9a&BlogTagID=20fc7197-c030-4060-93cf-5ac1a2d4dd9a .. a wet December indeed ,

Haha! His forecast for the winter, great link. What a load of nonsense.

Will Matt Cooper ever follow up on this?

jamesoc wrote: »

First of all this forum is a public debating forum , i am giving my opinions on the topic , get that fact right before you single me out for special attention ' i was replying to a specific forecast he made for a specific day among other points , i was replying to his answer for that day , do you understand that ? .

2ND , listen to his podcast re last December before you praise his ''accuracy'' , you might also pay some attention to the only person here who can actually comment on Rings forecasts , he actually purchased one (DID YOU) have a careful look at the Carlow mans opinions on this ''accuracy''.

The "Carlow man" has a weather website, is a part time meteorologist. He admitted he purchased the forecast to be critical. He found it wanting in accuracy, apparently. What do you expect? If he was being picked for a jury he'd be dismissed without a second look.

Kenring wrote: »

The "Carlow man" has a weather website, is a part time meteorologist. He admitted he purchased the forecast to be critical. He found it wanting in accuracy, apparently. What do you expect? If he was being picked for a jury he'd be dismissed without a second look.

I am very far from been a part time meteorologist and I didn't admit to buying your forecast to be critical, I admitted to buying it to form an opinion based on results and that is what I have done you just don't like it.

Lets have an open and frank debate where we can review your past years forecast??

Kenring wrote: »

The "Carlow man" has a weather website, is a part time meteorologist. He admitted he purchased the forecast to be critical.

Ken, I don't know if he has said that but there is nothing wrong with being critical and to verify the validity of weather predictions. It is not illegal to use your data without your permission for that.

"A work may be used by anyone for the purposes of research or private study without the permission of the author, provided the use is conducted in a way which does not prejudice the rights of the copyright owner. The work may also be used for criticism or review or for reporting current events, with the same proviso, and provided further that the use of the work is accompanied by an acknowledgement identifying the author and the title of the work. " Copyright Association of Ireland http://www.cai.ie/faq/index.htm#10

"Websites - Can I put copyright material on a website without the copyright owner’s permission?
It is possible that putting material on a website could be for the purposes of research or study, but it is unlikely to be fair. Your best course of action is to get permission." Copyright Council of New Zealand http://www.copyright.org.nz/index.php

Ken, to refuse permission of the use of your predictions here for research or study is also unlikely to be fair. Did you ever give anybody permission to prove your predictions and claims?

While shaking my head on your attidude and reading the discussion and your comments in another blog http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/blog-can-ken-ring-really-predict-weather I got the idea to use the there mentioned 15-point checklist "How to Spot Pseudoscience." of Brian Dunning, http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037 (citations with some interleaves marked as ...)


"1. Does the claim meet the qualifications of a theory?
Very few claims that aren't true actually qualify as theories. Let's review the four main requirements that a theory must fulfill. 1) A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. Anecdotal or unsubstantiated reports don't qualify. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation. You'll find that most pseudoscience is supported by only a single foundation. 2) A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can't qualify as a theory. And if something is truly testable, others must be able to repeat the tests and get the same results. You'll find that this feature is truly rare among pseudosciences; they'll generally claim some excuse or make up a reason why it can't be tested or repeated by others. 3) A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed. 4) A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable. You'll find that most pseudoscience does not allow for changes based on new discoveries."

No, your moon-weather-cycle thing doesn't qualify as a theory. You withhold empirical testing and experimental evidence. Nobody supports you. You are the Don Quichotte of weather forecasts. Your claims are static, blocking any change by new evidence and discoveries.


"2. Is the claim said to be based on ancient knowledge?
This is a sure sign that the claim is not based on scientific evidence. ..."

Yes, you often refer to Stonehenge, the Aboriginals, ancient beliefs and a lot more of so called ancient knowledge.


"3. Was the claim first announced through mass media, or through scientific channels?
Real discoveries go through an unbiased peer review process, which results in publication through scientific journals. ..."

Yes, you are mass media player.


"4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon? ..."

Yes, an unknown energy of the moon.


"5. Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities? ..."

Yes, you are often complaining that the metereologist are behind you. And you have accused here in this thread scientists and two members of boards.ie.


"6. Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Does the claim truly fit in with what we know of the way the world works? How often do claims that turn the world upside down really turn out to be true? Approach such claims with extreme skepticism, and demand evidence that's as extraordinary as the claim."

At first view no and that is (one) of your tricks. We all know that the moon is (one) reason for tides. At second view it sounds too good to be true that a moon circle is responsible for our weather. And it sounds too good that a weather forecast for a whole year around a year and a half in advance can be done, too good. So yes to the question.


"7. Is the claim supported by hokey marketing?
Be wary of marketing gimmicks, and keep in mind that marketing gimmicks are, by themselves, completely worthless. Examples of hokey marketing that should always raise a red flag are pictures of people wearing white lab coats ... "

That makes me smile.No, you are not wearing a white lab coat. But yes, Ken your hat and your dark clothes ... sorry, for me it looks like a mixed outfit of a farmer in the outback and a priest.


"8. Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?
Is there a simpler, natural explanation for the claim that does not require any supernatural component? Are results consistent with the placebo effect or the body's natural healing capacity? Can a stage magician duplicate the psychic's feats? The Law of Large Numbers states that a one-in-a-million event usually happens to everyone about once a month, and since Occam's Razor says that the simpler of two possible explanations is usually the right one, don't leap for a supernatural explanation just because you happened to dream about your grandmother on the night she died."

I cannot really review this point, I don't have and won't buy your books. But, for me, you are passing the test in a circular motion and that is one reason why people believe you. Long-range weather forecast have a low accuracy at latest state of the art. Much more research is necessary to give simple answers in a complex system. But people want them now, at once and on the spot. You are offering simple answers which all the scientists cannot give at this stage.


"9. Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?
Science works by starting with a null hypothesis and searching for evidence. Pseudoscience starts with a positive hypothesis and supports it with questionable research and anecdotal reasoning. It's unlikely that an institution dedicated to the promotion of any given claim will present any type of evidence other than that which supports their claim, and its bias should be given serious consideration."

Yes, your source is your moon-weather-hypothesis.


"10. Are the claimants up front about their testing?
Any good research will outline the testing that was done, and will present all evidence that did not support the conclusion. Be skeptical of any claims that do not detail testing methodology that was thorough and responsible, including external verification and duplication, or that do not provide evidence unsupportive of the conclusion."

Yes, and how!!!


"11. How good is the quality of data supporting the claim?
Watch out when testing data might be susceptible to observational selection, which is the counting of hits and not the misses, like we see with television psychics. Watch out when sample sizes are too small to have statistical significance, as with most clinical trials of homeopathy. And especially watch out for hastily drawn causal relationships: the assumption that because the relief occurred after the remedy, the remedy must have caused the relief."

Which data?
Bad. You you are always trying to present us only your random hits.


"12. Do the claimants have legitimate credentials? ..."

Which credentials?
No.


"13. Do the claimants state that there's something wrong with the norm?
When real research is presented, it consists of the evidence that was discovered and the conclusion. It does not go off on alarmist rants about how the food we eat is dangerous, how we're destroying the planet, how the government covers up its evils, or how you're going to hell if you accept evolution. When a claim is presented as an alternative to the wrongs of the status quo, it's a sign that the claim is probably based on ideology or philosophy rather than science."

Yes, you do.


"14. Is the claim said to be "all natural"?
As we've see time and time again, by no definition can "all natural" mean that a product is safe or healthy. Consider the examples of hemlock, mercury, lead, toadstools, box jellyfish neurotoxin, asbestos — not to mention a nearly infinite number of toxic bacteria and viruses (E. coli, salmonella, bubonic plague, smallpox). In many cases, synthetic versions of natural compounds have been engineered to make them safer, more effective, and able to be produced in large quantities."

Yes, but with a disclaimer to the accuracy.


"15. Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?
Some claimants suggest that it's moral, ethical, or politically correct to accept their claims, to redirect your attention from the fact that they may not be scientifically sound. In some cases, such as Young Earth Creationism, proponents use the court system to force schools to teach their claims as fact. Generally, when a theory is scientifically sound, even if it's brand new it will eventually find its way into the educational curriculum. Good science is done in the lab — not in the courts, not in protest marches, not in blogs, and not in church. A political or cultural campaign to legalize or promote some product or claim is a major indicator that it's bogus."

I would like to add: Good scienes is done in lab — not in blogs, web boards and websites but sometimes they are labs.
That people buy your products has no no evidence that you are right with your claims and that you are not a Pseudoscientist.


I have learned a lot about you but, sorry not from you.