reply to post by wasobservingquietly
to hang on to our optimism.
There is some good evidence even in this thread that the goal is achievable. I would be as glad as
anyone if this particular organization could do what they claim, but frankly their methods puzzle me.
Their allegedly scientific approach is not being followed through by scientifically and impartially recording the results of their predictions that
did not come off. And that is not the way a legitimate scientific organization operates.
Recording "misses" (or "non-hits") is just as necessary as recording successes. Anyone with even fundamental schooling in scientific methods will
acknowledge that. Also, the greater the precision of the prediction, the more rigorous we have to be in assessing the outcome.
Put it this way: if we have someone in this thread who says that they think there's a fairly good chance of a mag (x) quake in a given location within
about the next week or so, and such an event occurs nine days later, I'd take that as close enough to their time window to mark down as a "hit".
Provided, of course, that it's not a location where quakes of mag (x) occur on average every week or so anyway. (In that case it's a pointless
exercise as purely by chance they'll be right most of the time.) That's why I'd never bother predicting a mag 5 range quake for Indonesia, or a
low-range mag 3 for SoCal, as they're practically a given within any week or so.
But if someone back in April said, "a major earthquake and possible tsunami will
strike between now and the end of 2012" and then went on to
say, "Location : Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Epicenter coordinates: 50.5 N, 159.6 E", I'd take that as a very specific prediction that required very
And that is exactly what they said in their CWN document on April 9, 2012. The document is on their site
Their prediction had no ifs, buts or maybes. They said it will
happen. It did not, and I feel that by failing to say "We got it wrong", they
are doing more harm than good. I know that these things are incredibly hard to predict, but they gave the impression that they were absolutely certain
they were right.
And now, many people will see them as having cried wolf. Not only with that warning, but the next one on July 30, where they advised people to move to
places of safety as the event will
occur within 1 to 2 days.
This is what bothers me. Some people may have become frightened and moved out on the basis of that first warning. Then after some days, they moved
home again. Then in July, they get another warning. Dilemma: move or stay? But they say it will
happen, so it's best to move...
And then nothing.
And now, after two months, they get this
warning on Oct 9, released a full six months after their first prediction on April 9 -- the one that
said this event would happen before the end of June! Even if they are right this time and a big quake hits within that region within a week, they've
given themselves half a year
to hit it.
So, how much credence do we give them?
And if it doesn't happen -- and the odds are it won't -- then where does this leave things? Do we give them another
six months of issuing
warnings to evacuate as the quake "will
" occur within a couple of days?
It would have far better if they had just come out and said at the end of June, "The expected event did not occur. We are now re-analyzing the data
and we may make another prediction in the future."
I'd be happy enough with that. It's what happens in science all the time, in many fields. Things don't pan out, you assess why, and see how to
improve. Their current approach just gives the nay-sayers more ammunition.
I mean, I'm for
the concept of quake prediction and look how I'm laying into them! So imagine what the "prediction is impossible" brigade are
Anyway, moving on...
I hope hubby's feeling better. Seizures are never pleasant. I have my own forms of them to deal with on occasion and they're pretty awful. But being
quake sensitive as he seems to be (and perhaps to CMEs as well?), that must mnake it harder.
Let's hope things quieten down.
And just to finish: I'd be very glad if that predicted Kamchatka quake does not occur. Not because I want that organziation to be wrong, but because I
don't want people to suffer the horrors of such an event. I'd rather it doesn't happen for a long time yet, if possible.
edit on 10/10/12 by JustMike because: (no reason given)