Hi Petra,

<> Yeah, I've read those reasons here ad nauseum.

Here are some selected characteristics from a term to be found at Wikipedia:
- Grandiose claims for the validity and scope of the theory
- Stated belief that a conspiracy by the scientific establishment is hindering
uptake of the theory
- Use of neologisms without proper definition [i.e. "earthquake sensitives",
"roller waves", "earth precursory emissions", etc. -MW]
- Direct communication of the idea to the media, typically holding a press
conference before going through the usual peer review process of publishing
in scholarly journals
- Observable effects of the theory are at or beyond the limits of detection
- Lack of a working prototype where one might expect it to convince a
skeptical audience

I would add:
- continuing derogatory references to "high science", or to a "closed-minded"
scientific establishment, and
- inclusion of a just-sufficient amount of real, impressive science to lend an
aura of respectability to the argument

Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande, CA