Ken Ring pontificates on climate change

Posted on July 13, 2014 | 15 Comments

Another of Ken Ring’s “self help” books – Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat’s Paws

Ken Ring runs a business predicting the weather. Apparently in that sort of business, and with the clients he has, conflict with evidence-based science and scientists is good for business. So,  it isn’t not surprising to find him trolling the internet debating issues from weather and climate change to earthquakes.

But his contribution to a recent debate on the NZ Skeptics Facebook page is a shocker. Here is his simple experiment proving that carbon dioxide does not influence climate and anthropogenic climate change is a fraud:

  • Ken Ring “Christopher, no, CO2 does not affect temperature at all. A bottle of Coke won’t warm a room, but a warmer room will increase the pressure of CO2 in the bottle. 

And just to dig the hole even deeper he adds:

  • Ken Ring “Ok William, just shake the bottle of Coke in a cold room and then open it. See if it warms the room. Then shake one in a warm room and open it. Note the difference. James, there is hardly any CO2 in the atmosphere. Roughly 99% of all the CO2 in the world is in the ocean or in the ground. Tiny fact you may have overlooked.”
Not the sort of thing that should inspire confidence of his scientific skills amongst prospective customers. But then again, with some people this sort of thing goes down well.

Similar articles

This entry was posted in climate, diversity, New Zealand, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 responses to “Ken Ring pontificates on climate change”

  1. Steve Slott | July 13, 2014 at 2:44 pm |

    Ken, I’m not sure I understand your problem with Ring’s assessment. Obviously, the fact that opening a bottle of pop doesn’t warm up a room negates all of the study on CO2 emissions and greenhouse effect.

    This should be clear to anyone.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  2. Chris Banks | July 13, 2014 at 11:42 pm |

    I must say, Ken Ring is the first person I’ve encountered who has tried to engage in quote mining of dictionary definitions. Utterly shameless when called on it as well.

    Like

  3. Cedric Katesby | July 14, 2014 at 12:34 am |

    Does anyone remember Andy and his glass jars? That was special. Now they’re focused on Coke bottles.
    On the other hand, there’s NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    How many surveys does it take? How many pie charts before it dawns on them that, yep, that’s what the science says?
    Science denialism: Only the topic changes.

    Like

  4. kenmoonman | July 14, 2014 at 10:06 am |

    No Cedric, it isn’t what science says. It is what scientists say who want to find government money, not who want to find truth. A billion dollars a day is spent on global warming issues. How much of that purse goes towards scepticism? Scepticism is an essential part of science. Without it there is no science, only pseudoscience. And that is what we have ended up with.

    Like

  5. Richard Christie | July 14, 2014 at 10:57 am |

    No Cedric, it isn’t what science says.

    Proof positive that Ken Moon has no grip on reality and that his notoriety as a laughing stock is well deserved.

    Ken Moon demonstrating that CO2 doesn’t behave as a greenhouse gas by opening a bottle of fizz and measuring the change in room temperature.

    Stupid, stupid and more stupid.

    Like

  6. Cedric Katesby | July 14, 2014 at 5:09 pm |

    … it isn’t what science says. It is what scientists say who want to find government money, not who want to find truth.

    It’s not your conclusions that matter. It’s your methodology.
    Why should anyone meekly believe you?
    You’re just some anonymous person on the internet peddling conspiracy theories.
    On the other hand, there’s NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    It’s not really a hard choice.

    How is this global, scientific conspiracy supposed to work anyway? What are the nuts and bolts of the operation? Can you give a more coherent explanation than say the anti-fluordiationists or the anti-vaxxers or the anti-evolutionists?

    The 30 Billion Dollar Scam

    Like

  7. AD | July 14, 2014 at 8:53 pm |

    This seems like a good moment to remind ourselves on how the scientific peer review process works …..

    Possibly also a good opportunity to call people morons and idiots.

    Jackasses and jerks, etc etc

    Moron, idiot, jerk, jackass, retard, mong, etc etc

    La la la la la la la

    A happy day indeed..

    Like

  8. Cedric Katesby | July 15, 2014 at 1:47 am |

    This seems like a good moment to remind ourselves on…

    Evidently not for you. You can’t apply yourself. It’s not enough to watch the video nor just post it as some passive-aggressive hissy fit. You have to apply it. Follow the science.
    If you can’t do any better on the internet that the morons we get here all the time, then we get to call you a moron.
    Actions speak louder than words.
    Lift your game.

    Like

  9. Cedric Katesby | July 15, 2014 at 5:43 am |

    A billion dollars a day is spent on global warming issues.

    I have to ask.
    Where does this conveniently round and vague number come from?
    The entire requested budget for the whole of NASA this year comes in at $17.5 billion US dollars.
    (That’s “requested”. They’re not actually going to get that. Plus NASA is not totally devoted to climate change research. There’s other stuff.)

    The European Space Agency for 2013 got an anemic $5.5 billion dollars.
    (Again, they do other stuff)

    Yet, somehow, there’s another 300 billion or so dollars to account for………………….in this year alone.
    Details? Someone? Anyone? 😉

    Like

  10. AD | July 15, 2014 at 6:35 am |

    Cedric, here is a thought. Why don’t you up your game and find out how much is spent on climate change for your self?

    Stop behaving like a moron

    Like

  11. Cedric Katesby | July 15, 2014 at 7:49 am |

    I’m not the moron. You are. If you don’t want people to tell you that you are a moron, then stop behaving like one. You’re not doing anything that Joy or Trevor or the unforgettable IAN hasn’t done before.

    Like

  12. AD | July 16, 2014 at 9:58 pm |

    What makes YOU THINK that I am a moron and you are not? Is it because I WROTE SOME STUFF with caps lock on?

    Does putting caps lock on MAKE YOU A MORON?

    Good question.

    What does the science say?

    Like

  13. Cedric Katesby | July 17, 2014 at 2:14 am |

    What makes YOU THINK that I am a moron and you are not?

    The way you and Harley and Joy and all the rest behave kinda gives it away. If you don’t want people to tell you that you are a moron, then stop behaving like one. It’s not enough to watch the video nor just post it as some passive-aggressive hissy fit. You have to apply it. Follow the science.
    If you can’t do any better on the internet that the morons we get here all the time, then we get to call you a moron.
    Actions speak louder than words.
    Lift your game.

    Like

  14. AD | July 17, 2014 at 10:03 am |

    How do you suggest I apply the science?
    Should I spend 40 years working as an atmospheric physicist at a university? Should I publish hundreds of peer reviewed papers?

    Like

  15. Cedric Katesby | July 17, 2014 at 5:17 pm |

    How do you suggest I apply the science?

    It’s not that hard. You don’t even have to be a scientists. Most people aren’t.
    However, there are the relevant scientific communities out there that have the best scientists in the world. You can check any and all of them out. They will all tell you the same thing for the same reasons. They will even provide a wealth of information on how they did their job and how they reached their conclusions.
    That goes for any scientific community. I don’t need to cherry-pick.
    That goes for any scientific topic. The standard methodology applies.
    Abandon the kook fringe for a change.

    Skewed views of science Theory or Guess_ – YouTube.FLV

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.