John,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between "forecasting" and "predicting." They have a different connotation. If you will recall Lowell's SSA Opinion Letter, it pretty much laid it out right there. The gloom and doom dark side of things are replaced with probabilies such as the weatherman might provide. Not quite that loosely though.

I think they should have given them six months to a year to demonstrate what they had to offer and if it was objectionable, then they would have had room to decide it was a threat to the residents of California. We haven't had any large earthquakes since then so I don't believe they would have ever forecasted one. Of course, I have a lot more confidence in them than KB, though it doesn't mean I don't think he can. I have an idea or two about what he might be able to do if he sat under my roof instead of yours.

You have to be honest John, you just don't care for them because you don't know what they can or can't do. I may know a few things; but not enough to offer something worthy of your reading. My confidence is 100% they could have done everything they set out to do. If some had not booted them out of here you might have benefitted greatly from meeting them. I think a little fireside chat would have been a great way to start.

Actually, long ago I thought if one could corral scientists who are interested in earthquake prediction into a place where they couldn't leave might be a good way to influence them to stop back-biting and communicate with each other. It might take months, but maybe if there was a psychologist there who could lead them through group therapy it might be quite beneficial to all.

Petra