Claimed to be ready for prime time
Posted by John Vidale on February 18, 2003 at 06:44:29:

Petra,

geoForecasters has stated some strong claims. If they are overstated, as I strongly suspect they are, and people buy into them, they may set back earthquake prediction efforts another ten years, just as diffusion-dilatancy did in the 1970's.

They publicly state they can predict M2 events in California way ahead of time, but have so far offered no proof. They also said they have been able to predict all events greater than 6.5 for the last 18 months.

Berkland has been around a decade, and his claims remain to be documented, in fact most scientists consider them debunked.

Whitehead has a track record of presenting wild ideas as more founded than they are (check his AGU abstracts), and Kozuch has never written a paper to my knowledge about the physics of earthquakes.

John


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: My Oh My - Aren't We Open Minded - Petra Challus  19:08:56 - 2/18/2003  (18061)  (1)
        ● cold facts aren't always friendly - John Vidale  19:49:19 - 2/18/2003  (18062)  (2)
           ● Re: cold facts aren't always friendly - Petra Challus  20:34:13 - 2/18/2003  (18064)  (1)
              ● different approaches - John Vidale  21:25:09 - 2/18/2003  (18067)  (1)
                 ● Re: different approaches - Petra Challus  22:38:35 - 2/18/2003  (18068)  (1)
                    ● practicality - John Vidale  23:18:14 - 2/18/2003  (18069)  (1)
                       ● Re: practicality - Canie  12:04:37 - 2/19/2003  (18080)  (1)
                          ● Geoforecaster - chris in suburbia  13:44:56 - 2/20/2003  (18088)  (1)
                             ● correlations - John Vidale  14:48:32 - 2/20/2003  (18089)  (2)
                                ● Re: Scoring - Canie  23:00:41 - 2/20/2003  (18092)  (1)
                                   ● automatic hits from loose scoring - John Vidale  06:38:58 - 2/21/2003  (18096)  (0)
                                ● I meant only geoF, not Don's work - John Vidale  15:11:31 - 2/20/2003  (18090)  (1)
                                   ● Re: I meant only geoF, not Don's work - EQF  22:40:17 - 2/20/2003  (18091)  (0)
           ● Re: cold facts aren't always friendly - Don in Hollister  19:56:53 - 2/18/2003  (18063)  (1)
              ● facts are useful - John Vidale  20:40:41 - 2/18/2003  (18065)  (0)
     ● Re: Claimed to be ready for prime time - chris in suburbia  06:57:18 - 2/18/2003  (18055)  (1)
        ● must be Don, not me - John Vidale  07:11:12 - 2/18/2003  (18056)  (2)
           ● Re: must be Don, not me - chris in suburbia  11:48:41 - 2/18/2003  (18060)  (0)
           ● Re: must be Don, not me - Canie  10:49:59 - 2/18/2003  (18059)  (1)
              ● Re: must be Don, not me - Mary C.  09:18:55 - 2/19/2003  (18073)  (0)