>And what happened to plate tectonics as a driving force in earthquakes (as opposed to water sloshing around)?

It's still there. My theory explains the Plate Tectonics, caused by sloshing water that drives earthquakes. If we know the forces behind Plate Tectonics, and the forces behind those forces, etc., we gain a better understanding of the overall picture.

I find it kind of amusing that most seismic scientists see earthquakes as isolated events with supposedly a single, or isolated set of causes. When there's an earthquake there are a bunch of experts coming out to talk about this fault or that fault, as though the fault magically summoned up all this energy.

Faults are merely cracks, they are effects of a greater cause. We really need a more comprehensive theory to explain seismic activity. Maybe as we broaden our view of seismic causes we will hone in on a method for successful earthquake predictions? But this isn't my goal. My goal is to put together a functional model that shows how energy is transfered among the various solar and geo systems.

Terracycles explains seismicity as well as ENSO, volcanology, plate tectonics, ice ages, global warming (I call it global thawing), the biosystem and, if studied to an extreme depth, would ultimately cover every science in the book. Terracycles as I'm developing it, is mostly a macro picture, however.

>"And where is there any evidence of increased earthquakes as the sea rises?"

I admit, this will require more paleogeologic research. Nobody, that I'm aware of, has succeeded in a method for determining general seismic activity for various time periods. There is a serious vacuum in earthquake data before the 1880s.

>"Of course there has been isostatic rebound from retreating glaciers..."

Clearly it is obvious that isostatic rebound is related to the terracycle? Retreating ice cover causes a shift in water mass as well as isostatic rebound. No doubt, this causes earth movements. This is logical evidence that there were a greater number of earthquakes since the last advance of ice than there would have been had the ice not melted. It is hard to believe these ground movements did not trigger at least a few earthquakes, earthquakes that would not have happened had there been no ice melting (or ice building for that matter.)

But the Terracycles theory only predicts an increase in earthquakes. It does not conclude an increase in earthquakes. Seismic research will be necessary to prove or disprove the theory. The purpose of a good theory isn't to provide evidence, but to show us where to look for it.

Dave