John, my responses are in brackets below [ ].

The problem is optimism vs pessimism.
Neither Berkland or Whiteside have found a signal documented in even a semi-quantitative way - KB's predictive power, which also has not been documented in an unambiguous way, could arise simply from the long-known fact that earthquakes cluster in space and time, which is also captured in the new (conservative) web page of earthquake danger from the USGS.
[ I believe almost anyone who has the ability to pull an earthquake catalog for any place on the planet which has large earthquakes, along with time intervals and a sufficient knowledge of other earthquake patterns can duplicate what KB does. For instance, I believe I could produce something quite similar and could be just as likely as he, to bring forward successful predictions. I don't believe you are privy to Whiteside's prediction formula, so I'm not sure you are in a position to comment, is that correct? If Berkland wishes to comment, he can visit here and do so.]
So far, earthquake forecasting in terms of probability gains of just a factor of about ten have not been achieved, nor are they very useful for society. Vastly more powerful predictions are necessary to save a large fraction of the lives currently lost.
[I disagree. You cannot save one single life is you don't tell anyone an earthquake may arrive. Nor will the lack of earthquake safety education as well. These two must go hand in hand.
Let us go back prior to Loma Prieta. 15 months before, as well as two months before this earthquake arrived, the scientists in the USGS Menlo Park office, thought there was going to be a large earthquake and they did issue a short alert (5/7 days). It wasn't really a prediction. That was as a result of two 5.0 quakes in the general area, but they were not at the Loma Prieta site. After that, nothing else was released to the public and was generally forgotten.
Yet 3 days before the earthquake Jim Berkland issued is world class prediction and it was as perfect as they get. Is there some reason no one in the scientific community wishes to give him credit for doing exactly what should have been done?
Can anyone explain why all of these people who have the same general scientific background would not have come to the same conclusion and yet only one of them stayed with the program and delivered? What happened to the one's who never said anything? Did they lose their way in the dark on the road to Loma Prieta? They are the one's who possessed all of the equipment, so what's the story there? ]
The long-term funding for earthquake research IS largely driven by the quest for earthquake prediction. However, it may be hard to appreciate that uncovering the details of the earthquake cycle through mapping the stress and strain accumulation through seismicity catalogs, GPS recordings, and now InSAR monitoring is the thorough and most sensible way to attack what may be an intractable problem.

[So we are now heavily invested in SAFOD. After millions spent on Parkfield we are going to dump a huge sum of money in the same locale and await information to learn something. If all of the instruments and scientific study by "the learned one's" could not bring forth a prediction for a 6.0 which occurs very seldom in Parkfield, then I think they should shut it down because I am not convinced it is to our benefit to continue. It is time to look at some new technology and give up this old issue. I watch the instruments as frequently as most and I can tell you definitely that most of the time they are broken. There is no money to fix them or maintain them properly. The Garin dilatometer is showing acceleration in creep right now. Is anyone on alert? Is it working correctly? Who knows. It's not reliable.

As for Weimar's new toy computer program, I'm sorry, that's an after-the-fact item and if one is looking for a larger earthquake I wouldn't bet one dollar that the program will benefit anyone. ]
"there are only two scientists who are known to me who are interested in predicting earthquakes for reasons other than solving a math problem"?
To assert that scientists are not trying to save lives by predicting earthquakes is ridiculous, and I can speak from personal experience for the majority of the scientists involved. I just spent the last two days with the person who is probably going to chair the re-incarnation of NEPEC.

[ I have to disagree with you on this one in real time. One of your very finest slapped the public in the face on television in front of a million or so viewers when he said that the people living in San Simeon should have expected their earthquake because they happen on average every 50 years in that place.

If I recall correctly, that average is incorrect in the first place and secondly and most importantly did he or anyone else go and tell them at year 49 it was possible that history might repeat itself and they should know about it and prepare for it? NO. So there you have one of the good old boys who is highly praised and does he care about people enough to tell them? NO! If one of the two women who died there had been your family, you would have outraged. I was and I don't even know them. I know KB predicted it, but was it released so those in the area might have known about it? I am not aware that it was.

Is it not the responsibility of the employees of the government to disseminate information to the public about earthquake hazards, everywhere? It does not mean that one has to give them a prediction, but certainly information about earthquake likelihood would have been in order.

As for NEPEC, that is just an invitation for more government intervention to squelch the very thing some of us wish to promote. This is your trap door so that anyone you don't want to predict earthquakes can be filtered and gagged. If what you have now doesn't work why would anyone want a government body to put their stamp of approval on the unsuccessful? That makes a lot of sense.]
If seismologists thought earthquake prediction was inevitable rather than impossible, most would be working on the problem flat out. I personally think the odds are against greatly improved predictive power without greatly enhanced nitty-gritty monitoring of strain and seismicity, and probably unlikely even with nearly complete monitoring.
The level of detail of knowledge of the stress, strength, and structure in the Earth necessary to know when and where the next large rupture will strike may be overwhelming. But the value of success would be great enough that continued and more intense efforts are warranted.

[John, you are entitled to your opinion, but I really enjoy Jordan's approach. He is upbeat and he wants to know about what works and what doesn't. He's willing to view and listen to new ideas and not so ready to put a damper on something which could bare fruit. This man is in such a wonderful position and he has a really open way in which he discusses it. I admit I could be wrong about him, but I don't think so. I guess time will tell.

KB has some predictions on the back grill right now, but the public doesn't know about them. So is that the correct choice not to tell them, or is only one prediction all they will ever hear? What if one of those places has an earthquake and people die. How will he feel? How would you feel? This is where one cuts to the chase. There is a clear choice between scientific study and the welfare of the public which financially supports it. Are you there for them? If so, when is the right time? Is there a right time? How do you know?

Earthquake prediction is in fact inevitable. The cat is now out of the bag and cannot be put back in. However, let us remember that those who try and will try will meet much of the same type of treatment you all give each other on many issues. They will be labeled in one fashion or another, picked apart and left to dry out as dead bones. Only someone who has the ability to look the other way and ignore the group will survive in that environment.

As you know, it took a television weatherman in the San Francisco Bay Area to bring home the truth about our serious earthquake situation. While he was joined by some scientists to deliver the message, he obviously had our best interest in mind.

Frankly, I think it should be turned over to free enterprise, to those who make things happen and I am positive results could be achieved. Perhaps they could hire the best scientists and move things along a lot faster and not be so negative about the outcome.

Petra