Acme

Don't know what your problem is; it works for me.

Yes it does. Tools Internet Options Manage Add-ons Spelling Correction There is a UK English option as well as an option to download other dictionaries.

Can we talk!? I literally shout "you idiot" at the TV when I'm watching the Antiques Road Show and some person who has just been told their treasured passed-down possession is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars says, "But we'll keep it in the family." Hell, they don't know if they or their family will even be alive tomorrow. Some peoples' kids. Sell it!! Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die. After a house fire a couple decades ago I started accumulating and keeping less, and appreciating what I acquired and kept more. Arguably a desk is a tool, but mine is just a board, whereas my hand tools tend to high quality and old age. From a library of hundreds of volumes I now have fewer than 25. Everything that I have worth keeping I can fit in my car, though not everything I have is worth keeping. Nobody is perfect. To Mr. Ray and "How can I become more grateful of the things I do have instead of being envious of the things I don't have?" Just ask that question of yourself every time you are confronted with "things" and the gratefulness may follow.

I thought you made that quite clear in your first sentence by putting skepticism in quotes. Neither do I believe the folks you have in mind are thinking of skepticism in the classical sense or that they even know what the classical sense is. As you said, the term is hijacked to give the appearance of knowledge and/or validity to an argument and it's just a euphemism to "I can't believe it" or "I don't understand but I disagree". We can thank the likes of John Dewey, who said, "Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind." See above. Unequivocally, no. Unequivocally, yes. Dad told me, a person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.

Looks like pseudoscientific hooey to me. Since the sorts of activities mentioned, i.e. solar activity, earthquakes, volcanos, etc. have been going on throughout human history, there is no logical reason folks should only take notice now. The last line in the article should give some clue to the unsound nature of these speculations.

Your posting the references struck me as apologizing for, i.e. justifying, using skepticism as a fallback for derailing threads. Yes I noticed. I particularly noticed you didn't address how the skepticism -by any other name- is employed here at this forum to disrupt discussions. I don't understand that as written. How does it apply to the issue of posters ignoring 'tons' of evidence and making trite responses such as "prove it", or "I'm skeptical"? I read your link and quote, but they do not justify allowing the sort of circular ad nauseam postings that are at the crux of Phi's appeal. The upshot of Agrippa's 5 modes is that we can know nothing. Moreover, I don't see posters making any broad philosophical arguments of skepticism in the cases I see as fitting Phi's criteria. Whether these disruptive posts are accidental or intentional trolling, they are disruptive and if the past is any guide then there is no pointing this out to the promulgators that induces them to stop the disruptions.

Even if we accept that such apologetic notions of skepticism are attributable to the posters that Phi for All delineated, those arguments belong in philosophy and not as derailments to scientific discussions, i.e as Phi said, "when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam."

I have noticed it too. Alas I have been informed there is no rule against being wrong, but surely the ad nauseam falls under soapboxing. Ignorance can be alleviated, but not stupidity. The antithesis of a healthy skeptic is an unhealthy skeptic. The unhealthy skeptic on a forum is a troll who, faced with the inability to clear doubt, determines to sow discord, disrupt discussions, and provoke trouble. There is no benefit to unhealthy skepticism and you can point this out to a troll 'til you're blue in the face without one whit of reasoning ever getting through.

No worries; I understood your post as you intended it. I just quoted you as you had the link handy and I thought the few fracking induced quakes deserved mention. I also edited material into my post #45 when I ran across more mention of fracking induced quakes in the body of the report. All-in-all they are extremely rare. As long as I am here I will add some notes germane to the thread's question on what science can do. Incorporating Induced Seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model Results of 2014 Workshop and Sensitivity Studies

It will take me a while to read the entire report, but I was reviewing that appendix you linked and thought I should mention that a few individual quakes listed have indeed been tied to fracking. Note that the dates appear to be the dates of the reports and not the quakes. I sorted them out and included one quake of unspecified cause & its footnote that refers to a quake at the turn of the century. Edit: The upshot in regards to the OP is that scientists can advise governments and industries on what kinds of human activities can exacerbate seismic hazards so that steps can be taken to reduce the risks.

I...erhm...well.... Anyway, the entire series of increased seismicity over the recent past in Oklahoma has been shown by a preponderance of evidence to be a result of the oil & gas industry's practices. It is a cumulative effect for one thing, and for another as noted below in bold, the industry does not provide specifics on the location, quantity, duration, makeup, and dates of all well injections. Not only would it be hard to tie a specific quake to an injection event you have no knowledge of, it is impossible. Incorporating Induced Seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard ModelResults of 2014 Workshop and Sensitivity Studies I found that report referenced by USGS in a news release from 5 days ago. Here's that:New Insight on Ground Shaking from Man-Made Earthquakes

That's because you have failed to read the reports and/or failed to understand them.

For the umpteenth time, NO. It was associated with oil & gas recovery wastewater injections. No kidding. Again, it's not my definition, it is THE definition. And again, since earthquakes can't be predicted you can't draw the conclusion that small quakes are nothing to worry about. What is particularly worrisome about the Oklahoma quakes is the increase in number over a relatively short time and the fact that they have been induced by human activity. Thanks. At the bottom of that short report is a link to a 262 page study covering not just seismic events in Oklahoma related to oil production, but [human] induced quakes throughout the US related to oil & gas production, dams & their reservoirs, geothermal energy, and the potential for inducing quakes with carbon dioxide sequestration by deep injection. It will take me a few days to read it in its entirety, but I will post anything I run across that I find germane to the thread. Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies ( 2013 ) On page 6, this map appears:

Nonsense. For one, 'earthquake' is well defined and it has nothing to do with what we guys call it. earthquake An earthquake is not defined by magnitude, rather an earthquake has a measure denominated 'magnitude' and magnitude is just one measure of a quake. Even ground shaking caused by fault fracturing or volcanic eruption that is too faint to feel, is by definition an earthquake. I'll quote liberally from this link as it's public information and it seems few are bothering to read the material at the links I have given. Perhaps it will be read here in the post. Even so, there is more material than I am quoting on this single quake at the link. Largest recent Oklahoma Earthquake

More pedantically accurate? What does that mean exactly? Maybe, the facts? The wastewater injection -as I pointed out for John- is not a pressurized injection and the wastewater being injected comes up with conventional drill-and-pump wells. While there is wastewater associated with fracking, the pressurized fracturing of rock for oil & gas extraction is not what is causing the earthquakes in Oklahoma. Have saved your links and will read after dinner. Danke. That is not even a proper sentence, let alone meaningful.

Ahhh the warm fuzzy glow of us coming to yet another agreement. Here's my go-to site for everything earthquaky. Articles, links, detailed quake data, a configurable real-time world-wide earthquake map, and more. Try the map to see how many aftershocks there have been from the big Nepal quake and how widespread they are. Duck & cover! Earthquake Hazards Program @ USGS

One Year Later: The China Study, Revisited and Re-Bashed

Yes, but you quoted me & my citation & presented the article as to imply that it contradicted the unpredictability of earthquakes when you said "so he may be onto something.". Not only do a couple data points not satisfy a valid statistical analysis, the only thing the author is 'on to' is a generalization that more earthquakes will probably occur in the area at sometime in the future. From your article:Nepal quake 'followed historic pattern' Bollinger's research is valid insomuch as it adds a few data points, but it is a far cry from satisfying the number and type of data points that would be necessary for specific predictions that could do anything in the way of warning people to evacuate.

Since the general case of prediction as noted in my cited article applies to all specific cases, your guy is onto nothing but supposition. Again from my cited paper: The proof is in the pudding and if your guy can peg a Himalayan or any other earthquake to a particular day (or even week or month), give an exact location and magnitude and then it happens, he/they will be worthy of the kind of confidence you suggest I place in him/them. Otherwise, not. Back on the OP, there is an earthquake warning system being tested in my area that may give as much as 30 seconds warning to residents. Note that this is not prediction, rather reaction made possible by the different types of waves generated by earthquakes. Northwest earthquake-warning system to get its 1st public test @ Seattle Times

Yes of course I know about statistics and probabilities in science. However, in order to get any usable information from statistics and probabilities one needs sufficient data points and we simply don't have that when it comes to earthquake prediction. I turn again to the paper I cited earlier here and repeat my quote from it: (Bolding mine) Source: >>Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted

Not so. From the article I cited: {Bolding mine] Whispers indeed. And the article says 80 years or so; not 70. The article then concludes: So in essence the 'prediction' is that earthquakes will happen in the future but nobody knows when, which just reiterates that earthquakes are unpredictable.

Not exactly. Repost from Bad news for Londoners - an oil deposit found near Gatwick airport thread:

It doesn't matter when or what magnitude you had; no place is immune. As the paper I cited in post #5 explains, earthquakes are unpredictable. As to what 'science can do' besides engineering better infrastructure, science informs us what happens during earthquakes and from that information scientists can inform people on what to do when earthquakes strike. Not only can scientists inform us, they do inform us. Detailed Inform-ation here: >>Ready.Gov:Earthquakes

While most quakes occur in the vicinity of tectonic plate boundaries, no place on Earth is immune to quakes. The largest quakes recorded in the Eastern US occurred in the Midwest in the early 1880s and were not on a plate boundary. The damage to life-and-limb was limited because the area was largely unpopulated, but now that the area is densely populated and heavily developed the effect on humans will be severe. This is particularly true because 'everyone knows quakes don't happen in Missouri' so people haven't prepared. See 1811-12 New Madrid earthquakes

Perhaps, but quakes don't always open the ground. It's the shaking that causes the majority of damage and buildings can be made to stay together in severe shaking. Thee is no validity to such a generalized conclusion for earthquakes to strike 'every 60 to 70 years'. The location, timing, and size of quakes is an extremely complex system which is why their prediction is currently unachievable. See >> Earthquakes Cannot Be Predicted