I have to admit that, at the time of my original post, I had only given the referenced article a very quick read, and, as my bull-stuff detector had gone far into the red-zone, I just shot from the hip.

A more careful reading of the article suggests that it raises many more questions than I originally pursued, and that it is a very interesting example of the power of the un-peer-reviewed Internet as a source of misinformation. The implications vis-à-vis the current critical state of journalism in general are alarming.

Almost every paragraph in the article contains something bogus, and I'm even a bit suspicious of the math. John - can you comment on the math, and/or the bona fides of the author? The comparison being made is of the energy release in "recent years", but without any apparent identification of the base range. And what is the "annual earthquake energy ratio 'K"? A ratio is a fraction. What is being divided by what?

And, Yo! check this out (visualize the correct hand signals):
"Results presented in this article indicate that
the main danger for humanity on Earth may
come not from a slow climate change, but
from the rapidly increasing seismic/tectonic
activity."

I'm as fascinated by tectonics as is the next man or woman, but I recoil tonically-clonically from any suggestion that earthquakes represent anything like the main danger facing humanity. I would suggest Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh as candidates for that honor.

Mike Williams
From the formerly blue-state of California (no - I'm not gay. I just think a small increase in taxes is probably not out of line considering the challenges government is facing with almost 40 million people in California . . .)
I could go on, but am trying to resist the temptation.