>Your opinions are far from the mainstream of science.

Thanks, I realize that. If my opinions fell in line with everyone else, I wouldn't have to study so hard to explain them.

I have a few credentials. A formal degree is not one of them. But seriously, looking at the work produced by most of those people with degrees has been the driving factor in deciding to educate myself.

>but when you start asserting a new hypothesis you better be able to back it up with facts and figures and not just because you think its so.

Dictionary: Hypothesis - a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Canie, the purpose of a hypothesis is to draw up a framework for gathering facts. I have logic and reasoning to support my hypothesis, and to a large extent I also have data from other researches that confirm key elements of my hypothesis. Much of this data or reference is at my website and obtained by clicking on the links.

For example, my theory that ENSO is directly responsible for global thawing is clearly shown in hard data obtained from two different sources. I showed how the two data come together to prove ENSO is interelated with global thawing. I have taken my hypothesis to irrefutable conclusion. All you need to do is look.

Soon, as I discover more data sources, I'm certain I'll be able to prove or disprove many more of my logically derived hyphotheses. The claims I'm making about tidal actions are based entirely on clearly visible bathymetric evidence, tidal research by NOAA, known facts about the composition of the earth, breaking news in solar research, and modern plate tectonics theory.

The rebuttals from you and Roger have been unscientific, unrelated to the topic, and mere rhetoric. Maybe you two have coffee together and feel a personal bond, ready to defend each other with emotional support. That's fine. But if you are interested in the science of earthquakes, try defending your arguments with good science instead of "the oceans are like dew on an apple". I'm sure you are both really fine people with good hearts. But I only have time for good science. And maybe I'm asking too much, but I really expected better from a seasoned scientist.

If you have difficulty discussing science with me, look closely at the arguments you have made so far to my assertions and analyze them. Do you see any logic between my statements and your rebuttals?

Dave