|
Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method |
Michael; > Then you also have the Jim Berkland's of the world. Here you have a guy that has some sort of experience in geology at least, usually making scientific predictions from what I can see, and you have a wealth of data, predictions and results, that cannot be analyzed by anybody because it is not in form that permits any sort of sane analysis. A whole lot of effort going on there, but nothing to show for it because no third party can verify or disprove his results. Why do you say that? I've done it and published it. Roger Follow Ups: ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Michael Tolchard 09:48:13 - 3/12/2009 (74856) (1) ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Roger Hunter 10:27:22 - 3/12/2009 (74859) (1) ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Skywise 23:16:04 - 3/12/2009 (74881) (1) ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Roger Hunter 09:29:18 - 3/13/2009 (74883) (1) ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Skywise 20:13:20 - 3/13/2009 (74888) (1) ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Roger Hunter 20:42:15 - 3/13/2009 (74889) (1) ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Skywise 00:03:54 - 3/14/2009 (74890) (0) |
|