Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can you say that is sick?

I say it is sick because I find the exploiting of human tragedy for the purpose of advancing a pet pseudoscientific theory to be thoroughly reprehensible. YMMV. Is that clear enough for you?


> If there is some
> sort of correlation then that would be something
> that could be integrated into warning systems,
> thus possibly saving lives.

Why do you persist in pretending that thorough scientific studies of the correlation between earthquake frequency and lunar syzygy have not already been done? This was an early idea when seismology was developing and has been done a number of times. I have already informed you of this, so please do not continue to pretend that you were unaware of it.

>
> And how can you say cherry picking?


I can say "cherry-picking" because (a) you are only looking for earthquakes that occur around full Moon instead of looking at all data for large earthquakes and (b) because you are pretending that 3 days after full Moon (i.e. as near as dammit mid-way between syzygy and quadrature) is analogous to full Moon. It isn't, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

> I posted a
> message three days before this happened,

So what? Stating in advance that you are seeking to force-fit data to your notions does not make them any less pseudoscientific.

> and the
> theory is not that it happens bang on the full
> moon, only that the higher tides around that
> period may exasperate tectonic tensions.

Why are you (a) pretending that I have not already acknowledged a possible link between submarine earthquakes and tides and (b) continuing the deceptive conflation of tide and syzygy? I have already stated:

you will find that at no time was I referring to submarine earthquakes being triggered by ocean tides (for which there is a growing body of evidence and a proposed mechanism), but to the false relationship that you claimed, which was to lunar syzygy (for which there is neither).

> Its been
> addressed by scientists previously as I showed you
> before.

That is false. You claimed to show it before (e.g. here, but the claim turned out to be merely another instance of the deceptive conflation noted above. When I pointed out to you (here that none of these were actually supporting what you falsely claimed that they did, even you were unable to respond.

However, you appear to prefer to pretend that none of this has happened and to continue to exploit uhuman misery for your self-glorification. Yugh!

--

Stephen



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 02:06AM by sftonkin.