John Campbell’s interview last night with “Moon Man” and self-proclaimed earthquake predictor Ken Ring was, according to the unprecedented stream of Twitter messages following it, a “train wreck”, “harsh”, “disappointing” and “poor journalism”.
Media veteran Dr Brian Edwards weighed in (site loading slowly today) soon after the appearance to condemn Campbell’s effort:
John, your mindless, bullying, tirade against ‘moon man’ Ken Ring on tonight’s Campbell Live was perhaps the worst piece of egotistical, self-important, out of control, closed-minded, biased, unprofessional non-interviewing I have seen in more than 40 years of New Zealand television.
With respect to Dr Edwards, I think he is over-reacting. What John Campbell engaged in was on a par with a mild episode of BBC Hardtalk as fronted by attack dog intellectual Stephen Sackur – though without the finesse or, it has to be said, the intellectualism. In a sense, the interview with Ken Ring was a train wreck, but at least Ring wasn’t permitted to air his banal theories in a softball interview, the trap a journalist at the Gisborne Herald fell into:
The Gisborne Herald has been the only media outlet to ask him about his success highlighting the likely dates of quakes, he said.
’Nobody has interviewed me at all. The way I see it the geologists have got it all wrong – they say these earthquakes are not occurring on any known faults, but earthquakes create faultlines as they go.
Not that the Gisborne Herald felt the need to consult a geologist, an astrophysicist or a scientist of any persuasion in this single-source story.
It is this type of easy media exposure which Ken Ring is adept at manipulating to his own end. Let us not forget that Ken Ring publishes a long-running and presumably lucrative series of weather prediction almanacs – his website is currently pushing the version for Ireland.
Giving Ring airtime in the media has turned out to be a very bad idea – people are taking his theories seriously and in the wake of last week’s quake, many are considering leaving Christchurch in the days around March 20, when Ring next predicts a quake will occur. The Campbell Live interviews preceding the exchange with Ring showed how intelligent, hard-working and obviously fearful Cantabrians have bought into Ring’s scientifically unfounded predictions.
Given all of that, its not surprising that Campbell was angry, that he was unwilling to give Ring a free run as so many before him have done. Campbell succeeded in shutting Ring down and tore into his theory as he should have done. But so unfocused was the attack that the average viewer never even got to hear a summary of Ring’s theory before Campbell attempted to demolish it. The overall impression for those who had only vaguely heard of Ken Ring then was that of a poor old man sitting alone in a TV studio being shouted at by a flustered and clearly angry John Campbell. Tragically, people are flocking to Ring’s defence as a result.
The irony is that Campbell could have simply asked Ring four or five simple questions and stood back as Ring shot himself in the foot attempting to answer them with his wacky pseudoscientific explanations. That’s all that would have been required for the average Campbell Live viewer to write Ring off as a crackpot and move on.
The set-up of the interview didn’t help, with Campbell on location in Christchurch and Ring stuck up on his own in the Auckland studio. At least TV3 didn’t put Ring head to head live on national TV with GNS Science seismologist Dr Kelvin Berryman – that would have been unfair, inappropriate and have made for bad TV.
I yesterday spent much of the day at the Science Media Centre trying with limited success to persuade journalists not to give Ken Ring any more airtime. Unfortunately last night’s episode of Campbell Live has resulted in a lot of people lending moral support to a guy who is preying on the fear of vulnerable quake victims. I don’t think that’s what John Campbell set out to achieve but it was a side-effect of the shotgun approach he took when he needed the incisiveness of a surgeon’s scalpel.
For an analysis of Ken Ring’s earthquake predictions check out this piece by fellow Sciblogger David Winter
PETER GRIFFIN 
The irony is that Campbell could have simply asked Ring four or five simple questions and stood back as Ring shot himself in the foot attempting to answer them with his wacky pseudoscientific explanations. That’s all that would have been required for the average Campbell Live viewer to write Ring off as a crackpot and move on.
Perhaps, the problem with that approach is it opens the door to the “Gish Gallop” – it’s so much easer to make up more and more nonsense than it is to debunk it. If he had free reing to answer questions he’d have waffled on about lunar cycles and solar flares and least some people would have thought he sounded like someone that knew what he was talking about…
Yes true there’s a danger of that – the climate sceptics are masterful at it. You need to give someone like Ken Ring just enough rope… Campbell didn’t get the noose around his neck, just flogged him with it!
“Giving Ring airtime in the media has turned out to be a very bad idea…”
Maybe, but your expressed position misses the point. Once the decision is made by a media entity to provide a public platform then the law requires certain standards to be met, and they clearly were not on this occasion. That is the point that Edwards, as an experienced media man, is making, and I absolutely agree with him. Furthermore I suggest that the unprecedented feedback of 700 comments to the TV3 page that accompanies the piece, with 95% (sample of 100) expressing disquiet about the standard of the interview, shows that the community as a whole believes that broadcasting standards were breached. I have myself just filed my first-ever complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, so enraged was I … And I agree that Ring’s ideas are quackery!
Peter, Ring maywell be a charlatan but the science behind his theories is solid and well documented: the moon does deform the earth’s crust, causing what’s known as an earth tide.
Here is what the GNS wesbite says about it
“Seismologists have investigated the effect of the moon’s gravity for many years. The short answer is that while the moon does deform the earth slightly in a 12-hour cycle called the solid earth tides, it doesn’t seem to have an effect on the time an occurrence of big earthquakes. There are difficulties in understanding the effects of tidal forces because they are relatively small. However, if a fault or region is ready to rupture, it wouldn’t take much to tip the local stress field to the point of rupture. It’s worth noting that there is a much better correlation between the earth’s gravitational pull on the moon and moonquakes. Yes, seismographs have been taken to the moon and have recorded between 300 and 600 ‘moonquakes’ per year.
reference: http://sylph.gns.cri.nz/what/earthact/earthquakes/earthquakefaq.html#17
@mjwd48 that quote is pretty much what Kelvin Berryman said last night on Campbell Live: “The short answer is that while the moon does deform the earth slightly in a 12-hour cycle called the solid earth tides, it doesn’t seem to have an effect on the time an occurrence of big earthquakes.”
And that really is the point when it comes to Ken Ring trying to predict earthquakes – it doesn’t stack up scientifically in the context of what we know about the effect of the moon’s gravitational pull.
@mainlyme My position on Ken Ring yesterday in relation to the media was a: don’t give him any airtime b: If you feel you must because of the concern his theory is raising in Canterbury, go in armed to dismantle his unscientific theories. Option B didn’t quite work out for John Campbell, but the worst interview in 40 years of broadcasting as Dr Edwards suggests. Come on, a tad dramatic I think!
MainlyMe,
A little pedantic this, but while the absolute number of complaints might be meaningful in some way, the balance of them for/against will likely be meaningless – straw polls from the internet in any form (e.g. including counting comments on Facebook pages) are far too subject to crowd pressure, knee-jerk responses, etc., to be meaningful in my opinion.
The problem that has resulted in significant public response is not about the lunar theory, but about the extreme example of predetermined/biased journalism. The bottom line is that the experts are no more accurate in their predictions… One does not need to be a rocket scientist or even a geologist to know that there unknown fault lines, that earthquakes usually occur along fault lines, that existing fault lines can be extended by earthquakes and new fault lines are created by some earthquakes.
@ PG
Advice: “a: don’t give him any airtime b: If you feel you must because of the concern his theory is raising in Canterbury, go in armed to dismantle his unscientific theories” Gee that really worked didn’t it! For he first time in his entire life Ken Ring has the exposure he dreamed of. I see he even features on Twitter’s NZ trend list.
@ GJ.
Yeah .. pedantic. Presented the number as an indicator not as a statistic. And I stand by it!!! Now 883 comments on the TV3 page. Ring will have a grin from ear to ear!!!
I think that the interview went badly was not just Campbell’s fault, it was pretty obvious that Ring was not prepared to answer questions, but expected the usual ‘soft’ treatment in which he could spout off unchallenged. This then ended up being messy as Campbell then tried to rein him in and ask questions. Ken Ring carried on talking regardless of Campbell’s attempts to get him to address points and even when pinned down on a question such as on his qualifications, Ring waffled and blustered but never actually gave an answer. This was important, as he has claimed variable amounts scientific training which undoubtedly do not exist. I think what is being missed here is that this was never set up to publicise Ring’s claims which have already been covered by other media, it was set up to question him on those claims. This means that the whole point is missed, and that is that after making a number of broad unscientific predictions of ‘earthquake activity’ he’s had a near enough hit to garner him some attention (which no doubt will profit him considerably in book sales). He is now exploiting the situation and in doing so is playing on fear, this in effect ends up being the situation where someone falsely screams ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre causing a panic as already fearful people place credence in his claims and act accordingly.
Spotted this gem relayed from comment on the TV3 site, to Brian Edwards’ site and now here (let’s hope blockquotes work):
This, from a poster on TV3′s website (over 600 posts, so far.)
Ashleigh in Christchurch
01 Mar 2011 1:14a.m.
I think John Campbell is just tired like the rest of us down here. Perhaps more opporunity to speak should have been given to Ken Ring but are any of you aware that this man has co-authored a book called “Pawmistry†a guide to palmistry for your cat? I am SERIOUS! This is not a wind up, the book actually exists on Amazon. Google it. I wish John knew of this and had a chance to pop it into his interview with KR, I’d also like to know if he is a scientologist too?
petersmith,
“The experts” (your words) don’t try make predictions beyond evidence, it’s a big difference.
@GJ said… ““The experts†(your words) don’t try make predictions beyond evidence, it’s a big difference.”
Actually, they make predictions based upon assumptions… big, big difference. I had never heard of Ring before Campbell’s rude interview. It was the rude interview that has given Ring his day in the sun… nothing else, just rudeness.
Peter Smith,
I’m not sure why you are poking at (taunting?) me. You wrote that the bottom line was the accuracy of predictions. I pointed out how they are done matters, too. (Read David’s post, for example.)
@diaz… have another look at the interview…”http://www.3news.co.nz/Ken-Ring-I-predicted-the-Christchurch-quake-/tabid/367/articleID/200226/Default.aspx”
Go to 6 minutes into the tape. Ring is expressing his condolences as any normal human being would do and Campbell goes in for the kill… the rest is history. The problem is a bad interview, not the claims and counter claims regarding differing theories.
@GJ
You’re an odd fish. You lambast me for citing a count of comments as indicating a trend, then you select one item, a single data point, derived from the same source that swims against the tide like it validates your belief system. Most odd!
“Experts don’t make predictions beyond evidence” Really? I thought that the scientific process is
1. observe data,
2. form a hypothesis,
3. found predictions based on that hypothesis, and
4. observe whether the prediction occurs
5. refine the hypothesis.
Irrespective of your belief system there is at least some alignment in Ring’s approach with that plinth of knowledge creation.
@GJ, Poke? Taunt? You have to be kidding! Aren’t people allowed to express opinions any more? Scientists use assumptions every day to make predictions based, to a large degree, on probabilities and historical data. Assumptions are not evidence, they are assumptions based on experience and sometimes historical evidence. Rear vision mirrors help us drive safely, but they do note give us direction for what’s around the corner.
Taking a leaf from GJ’s book and highlighting a comment entered to the TV3 Campbell Live feedback page, this at least attempts to provide light over heat. The entry is by Concerned Viewer, and reproduced here in full:
It is a shame John Campbell didn’t take the time to do some research prior to this interview. While a contested theory, there are credible geologists, physicists and others (with multiple degrees each!) who have published in credible journals reporting statistical correlations between lunar tides and solar winds and certain kinds of earthquakes in certain places – including shallow, and not all of them minor. Some research suggests increased effect for these tides working in conjunction, which seems to be the crux of Ring’s approach. This work is available online via Google Scholar. What a shame TV3 didn’t bother to talk to *any* of these scientists in its attempt to discredit Ring, instead relying on local GSN experts who haven’t been trained in those areas and whose narrow specialisation may well be blinkering them to insights offered by other disciplines. I don’t know if Ken is right, but believe his theory may have some wee nugget of insight in there somewhere that deserves more serious consideration than TV3 and John Campbell gave it last night. See the following as examples of recent work.
S Tanaka, M Ohtake… 2004 Tidal triggering of earthquakes in Japan related to the regional tectonic stress, Earth Planets and Space, – zisin.geophys.tohoku.ac.jp
Sachiko Tanaka, et al (2002) Evidence for tidal triggering of earthquakes as revealed from statistical analysis of global data, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, 2211, 11 PP. doi:10.1029/2001JB001577
Elizabeth S. Cochran1,*, et al 2004: Earth Tides Can Trigger Shallow Thrust Fault Earthquakes
Science Vol. 306 no. 5699 pp. 1164-1166, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103961
G. Anagnostopoulos, et al,(2010) Solar wind triggering of geomagnetic disturbances and strong (M>6.8) earthquakes during the November – December 2004 period. Arxiv preprint arXiv
S.D. Odintsov, et al 2007, published in Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Fizicheskaya, 2007, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 608–610.
Sure, my remark was brief – I’m flat out – so maybe you’re reading into it. (Some people are pretty wound up at the moment, after all.) But jumping on me for a casual (and I emphasise, friendly) passing remark is a bit harsh. It wasn’t about “the scientific method” per se or anything elaborate, just that you don’t go off making predictions based on nothing much. Common sense, surely?
MainlyMe,
I did not “lambast” you. In fact, I deliberately went out of my way and turned on myself (my remark re pedantic) deliberately so that I you’d understand I wasn’t attacking you — I extended you that courtesy. Describing me as “an odd fish” is pretty rude.
you select one item, a single data point, derived from the same source that swims against the tide like it validates your belief system.
No offence, but I think you’re on the wrong page (see above).
Peter Smith,
You seem to have missed the point I was making. Your latest reply reads as if I opposed that scientists use assumptions. I didn’t say scientists don’t use assumptions – where they’re can be warranted or can be put to good use. (The use of them will be backed, of course.)
Just so it’s clear: I asked about ‘taunting’ because I didn’t know how to read your wording, as your words came across as pretty harsh. If that’s not the case, fine, just say so. (Without the brickbats!) My apologies if that has come across the wrong way you, but in my defence you own wording “Actually, … big, big difference†can read badly, too.
Is this a blog for scientists? For people with open minds? I cannot understand the vitriol towards this guy. Sure, if you some of you think what he does is no better or worse than astrology, that’s fine, but last I heard New Zealand was a democracy, and a democracy that encouraged free speech!
@grantjacobs you really need to chill out, I can’t believe how combative this forum is!
As for me, I don’t ‘believe’ in Ken Ring, but I don’t discount what he says either.
MainlyMe,
Berryman volunteered reference to that line work when interviewed.
The commenter you cite misses that this work isn’t useful in making predictions of earthquakes, as Berryman pointed out during the interview. (You did need to piece this together from two or three things he said, which may make it less obvious.)
Grant, it’s a bit rich to now claim that your hurried, off the hip comments may have been taken out of context.
The facts are these… Campbell was totally rude to Ring… it was not an interview but an ambush that has backfired badly.
There is solid published research giving credibility to space activity being related to seismic activity.
Seismologists are mostly of relevance after an event and struggle, despite their billions of dollars of historical research, to predict what might happen let alone what will happen.
Regardless of Ring’s credentials, his predictions were entirely useful for those who acted upon them… whilst the basis may be anecdotal and coincidental, the fact remains that he has believers and Campbell has given proof that Tertullian was correct when he said, ‘the blood of the martyr is the seed of the cause…’ (or words to that effect.) It is clear that much of what’s being written is ‘twittering’, not adding to an intellectual discussion.
Clem, the “vitriol” is towards a guy pushing flaky theories and as a sideline making a decent earner selling books based on those theories.
He is welcome to do that, it is a free world. But it needs to be pointed out that his theories don’t stand up to scrutiny from the scientific community. That’s what Campbell was trying to do last night, but unfortunately fell over himself in his eagerness to do so.
Bottom line, when a whole bunch of people in Canterbury are shaken and fragile, people need to know that what the guy is spouting is seriously shonky scientifically… that’s all.
I found the interview to be pretty poor but then perhaps John Campbell is under a little more stress than people understand. He has been covering the earthquake here in Christchurch so I’m guessing he is unlikely to be getting much sleep like the rest of us given the number of aftershocks. Furthermore the media may be seeing a lot worse than what is being seen on TV and may have lost some good friends in the CTV collapse.
No, it wasn’t John Campbell’s best interview, but perhaps having to interview someone who claims to have predicted the earthquake, yet didn’t publicise this widely until after the quake and with a body count approaching 200, was a bit of a challenge for him.
clemdevine, since when has it been a requirement for scientists to have ‘open minds?’ :-)) Many scientists I know are so locked into their pet theories that it seems the two, when juxtaposition, appear to be an oxymoron…
I think we can agree that Campbell’s interview was rude, predtermined and undertaken with a closed mind… Does Campbell have a degree in journalism?
@clemdevine
“Sure, if you some of you think what he does is no better or worse than astrology, that’s fine, but last I heard New Zealand was a democracy, and a democracy that encouraged free speech!”
Sorry, I must have missed something here. Whose free speech is being prevented on sciblogs?
It is also worth noting that free speech always has limits – shouting fire in a crowded room for example.
@PG
“But it needs to be pointed out that his theories don’t stand up to scrutiny from the scientific community. That’s what Campbell was trying to do last night”. Based on the perfromance which, not being JC is the only basis any of us can rely on, I cannot agree with your assessment. I think it was JC’s intention to denigrate Ring as a person, and he would have succeeded had Ring not been so composed.
@PS
“Does Canmpbell have a degree in journalism?”
Not according to his Wikipedia page. Here it states he has a B.A. (Hons) and that he learned his journalism on the job. Quite ironic given his passion for Ring’s qualifications!!!
Hold on @michael edmonds, Ken Rings posts have been on his own website the whole time, he hasn’t just come out and said so.
It’s up to him to do what he feels is right. The media has seen fit to make it a story now, as they are entitled to do so. It is unfair to criticise somebody for making a living whatever they say or sell.
This is fascinating…. Here’s a post on Ring’s website dated Monday 14th Feb…
It means ths area of the sun that corresponds to NZ is again seeing some activation. The window of 15-25 February should be potent for all types of tidal action, not only kingtides but cyclone development and ground movement. The 18th may be especially prone. The possible earthquake risk areas are N/S faults until after 16 February, then E/W faults until 23rd. The moon will be full on the 18th and in perigee on the 19th. This perigee will be the fifth closest for the year. The 15th will be nodal for the moon. On the 20th the moon crosses the equator heading south. Strong winds and swells may arrive around 22nd to NZ shorelines.
These are opinions and not predictions, based on observation of repeating lunar patterns.
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=334&type=home
Google “Ken Ring” then click on news… Can’t see anywhere where he’s bee taking advantage of the quake… put -queensland -3news and -sciblog into the search…
This one stands out…
“Driving with the car practically on two wheels to get down a street in Wainoni I think back to an editorial meeting on Monday where, against scoffs of some of the other senior journalists, quietly spoken John McCrone said he planned to write a feature on Ken Ring, an Auckland-based man who claims to be able to predict earthquakes through the study of the moon and tides.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/4704299/Reunited-after-the-quake-mother-and-child
@clem
“It is unfair to criticise somebody for making a living whatever they say or sell.”
Tell that to the guys at Fair Go or Consumer!
@Peter Griffin that’s an unfair comparison, considering I have read nowhere that subscribers of Ken Rings paid content are upset with his service. As a disclaimer I don’t buy his services, or his almanacs.
Here’s story that if correct will ask some serious questions of New Zealand scientists and experts.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201102280347.html
Funny how Campbell hasn’t interviewed people who were in a position to prevent loss of life.
Remove the deaths due to the two relatively modern buildings designed and inspected by experts and it makes the older buildings look quite safe…
@clem – do you really think Ken Ring’s paid subscribers would want it to be publicly known that they weren’t happy with the quality of his weather predictions after paying good hard cash for them? I don’t think so….
Grant, it’s a bit rich to now claim that your hurried, off the hip comments may have been taken out of context.
If that’s exactly what’s happened it’s not “a bit rich” at all. To make them out to be “hurried, off the hip” is casting aspersions: I’d have expected the better man to apologise and move on – just a thought, but I draw you to my last sentence: “My apologies…†I’ve done the best I can to extend the benefit of the doubt and try be courteous.
Ken Ring is trying to sell something that lacks support (see David’s article, for example, as I suggested earlier), just like his previous “ Pawmistryâ€. We can all laugh at the Pawmistry thing. It’s kind-of silly, and probably is mostly harmless* – provided no-one takes it seriously. (There lies the rub.)
But to do similar on something that affects people’s lives, and—important this—to continue to promote his wares, as it were, at time like this is stooping pretty low. I believe that’s a part of where Campbell’s interview is coming from. See the comments following from Alison’s article for example; it seems it took quite harsh comments from others on other forums to get him to stop promoting his claims during the early stages of the disaster despite it being common knowledge that people where suffering – that last claim is based on his words, not mine.
Clem,
you really need to chill out, I can’t believe how combative this forum is!
That’s a straw man you’re throwing that at 😉 I never wrote in anger in the first place and am being very patient over this. (You might want to consider the combativeness not mine — just a thought.)
(* Not meaning to channel The Hitchhiker’s Guide!)
“Ken Rings posts have been on his own website the whole time, he hasn’t just come out and said so.”
My point being, that if he had truly predicted a quake of this magnitiude and believed in his prediction then why didn’t he broadcast it more vigorously? particularly with all the lives lost.
But then I guess a 10 day window, which only mentions the possibility of ground movement is hardly a prediction at all? Particularly given that “ground movement” would cover any of the multitude of aftershocks/quakes felt in Christchurch. His “predictions” carry the same vagueness of the standard charlatan psychic or tarot card reader.
@ PG
“do you really think Ken Ring’s paid subscribers would want it to be publicly known that they weren’t happy with the quality of his weather predictions after paying good hard cash for them? ” Errr … yes! Isn’t that the whole basis of the Fair Go programme you channeled???
This forum is degrading into unscientific squabling and irrationally defensive position taking. Time for me to leave!
MainlyMe… It is difficult to recall any “sciblog” where contraire opinions are discussed rationally or objectively… and to think tax-payers money is used to provide the so-called science website.
I’m out of here too… it’s been entertaining if only to reinforce how blinkered some science-minded people are.
Did anyone get an impression that John Campbell may not have wanted to do the interview? Maybe he was instructed by a producer to run with it?? Just a thought…..
Petersmith – re the link. I think I would be on safe ground if I suggested that there are few engineering seismologists that have not tried to influence their masters, councils and numerous governments on the danger of earthquakes throughout NZ. I emphasise throughout NZ. The fact that it was built in 1975 should send a messaage. The CTV building was planned and built before the 1976 regulations came into force. Whether it was planned and built with foreknowledge of the engineering required to sustain a quake such as the last, or, planned and built to the letter of existing regulations must be left to experts who will be called to the inquiry.
All scientists and experts can do is offer advice. It is up to the politicians to decide if they will heed it.
I am certain there some very upset scientists and engineeers around at the moment.
The only upshot of all this is that many more people have now heard of Ken Ring, thus negating anything Campbell hoped to achieve!
Speaking for myself, I encourage readers here to read scientists’ responses, as collated by the Science Media Centre. In particular, I think the first—from Mark Quigley—is excellent.
Excuse my error (bizarre cut’n’paste error!), this is the correct link:
Some very sensible comments on Ken Ring from The Wizard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_cid=1&gallery_id=117051
He’s excellent, isn’t he? Wouldn’t mind seeing that on prime-time television for that matter.
Grant, thanks for that link. Ken Ring will be encouraged to read Dr John Bevan’s words… “so it is reasonable to suggest that tidal stresses could have an influence on faults that are already stressed close to their breaking point.”
Makes you think… doesn’t it… especially given the proximity of the quake to the surface and ocean and the likely extra stresses following September’s quake…
“This forum is degrading into unscientific squabling and irrationally defensive position taking. Time for me to leave!”
translation – You guys won’t validate my woo so I’m leaving.
“I’m out of here too… it’s been entertaining if only to reinforce how blinkered some science-minded people are.”
translation – science is so annoying when all they want to talk about is facts and won’t accept beliefs or “opinions” (Ken Rings term I believe).
News just in: Campbell’s opening passage of his show tonight re-affirmed he considers Christchurch does not need Mr Ring’s “predictions”, that he apologised for over-stepping the mark, and—important this—he offered Mr Ring a fairer chance to present himself, but Mr Ring declined.
Michael Edwards said, “translation – science is so annoying when all they want to talk about is facts…”
I’m RATFLing… what facts? Even Grant took to lauding the credibility the recently retired ‘Wizard’ gave his fellow believer’s arguments. As Grant has noted Campbell unreservedly apologised for his childish petulant behaviour last night… Ring didn’t have to go on air to give Campbell the chance to have another go… why would he?
Why wouldn’t he? Certainly many of his supporters have complained that he should have been given the opportunity to speak more freely. It does look a bit odd to be offered such an opportunity, & to decline.
While I thnk of it, further up the comments thread there were comments along the lines of ‘what happened to free speech?’ Everyone here has been free to speak freely & indeed, Mr Ring also has that freedom & exercises it, on his blog & elsewhere. But ‘free speech’ doesn’t mean freedom from having one’s ideas questioned, particularly if we’re on a science forum & the speakers can’t produce robust science-based evidence in support of their arguments.
Peter Smith,
Even Grant took to lauding the credibility the recently retired ‘Wizard’ gave his fellow believer’s arguments.
Not correct. This is not what the Wizard said, nor what I did either.
Please don’t misrepresent others – it is a very low form of argument and I’m quite capable of speaking for myself, thank you.
On that note, with regard to your earlier comment:
“Ken Ring will be encouraged to read Dr John Bevan’s wordsâ€
I don’t see geologists denying a (minor) influence of tidal effects, etc. For example—as both Peter Griffin and I referred to earlier—Berryman offered this in the interview.
What geologists have objected to is claims that you can predict an earthquake in the way Ken Ring claims to.
The point is, holding up this portion of a sentence as “news†seems neither here nor there.
You’ve also offered the portion of sentence you quote out of context, but readers can work that one out for themselves. (I could spell it out, but it’s tedious.)
@ Alison;
“Why wouldn’t he?” Consider these reasons. First tonight’s invitation was a reframe of the ambush he was entrapped with yesterday. ( See the video at 10’53” when Ring states “I thought you were supposed to be interviewing me about my theory and that is why I came on here.”) When you’ve been ambushed and beaten up once, why would you accept the thug’s invitation for a reenactment? Clearly Ring is not so stupid.
Secondly, it was evident from tonight’s introduction to Campbell’s cynical apology tonight that he was approaching any subsequent interview with the same set closed mind that had blinded him last night. So why would Ring honour Campbell with the opportunity to recover face?? My expectation is that Ring will pop up on Sainsbury shortly before D-day who will delight in upstaging JC.
(For the record I am a non-subscriber to Ring’s theory, but I am prepared, in the manner appropriate to scientific endeavour, to give him a hearing. Wish that others here had not closed down to rational discussion.)