|
Re: Earthquakes And CMEs |
One of the things that I have been saying is that it is my opinion that the science of earthquake forecasting can be thought of as being 1% science and 99% politics. And this would be an example. These types of studies are relatively easy to do compared to the amount of devastation a major earthquake can produce. And in my opinion these types of things should have been thoroughly researched years and even decades ago. Follow Ups: ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - Don in Hollister 16:48:24 - 5/7/2003 (18613) (2) ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - chris in suburbia 08:34:34 - 5/8/2003 (18615) (0) ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - EQF 08:29:07 - 5/8/2003 (18614) (3) ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - Roger Hunter 16:50:57 - 5/8/2003 (18620) (1) ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - EQF 20:01:04 - 5/9/2003 (18637) (0) ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - Don in Hollister 13:00:40 - 5/8/2003 (18618) (2) ● Re: Earthquakes And CMEs - EQF 20:00:52 - 5/9/2003 (18636) (0) ● Absolutely right. - Roger Hunter 16:47:20 - 5/8/2003 (18619) (0) ● fluctuation convictions - John Vidale 09:38:53 - 5/8/2003 (18617) (1) ● Re: fluctuation convictions - EQF 20:00:36 - 5/9/2003 (18635) (1) ● water well level - John Vidale 07:02:14 - 5/10/2003 (18641) (1) ● Re: water well level - EQF 11:35:15 - 5/10/2003 (18646) (1) ● points are being missed - John Vidale 12:58:33 - 5/10/2003 (18648) (2) ● Shan's method - Roger Hunter 12:52:24 - 5/11/2003 (18662) (2) ● a poor man's strainmeter? - John Vidale 08:58:04 - 5/12/2003 (18671) (2) ● Re: a poor man's strainmeter? - Roger Hunter 13:39:24 - 5/14/2003 (18701) (0) ● Re: a poor man's strainmeter? - EQF 16:46:14 - 5/12/2003 (18680) (0) ● Re: Shan's method - EQF 14:47:15 - 5/11/2003 (18665) (0) ● Re: points are being missed - EQF 14:11:24 - 5/10/2003 (18650) (0) |
|