Re: Earthquakes And CMEs
Posted by EQF on May 07, 2003 at 12:25:57:

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)