Greg Jennings
New member
Actually yes, I do. It's discussed often when you're taking geology courses. It's well known that lubricating faults makes them more likely to slip, and (spoiler alert) water is a decent lubricant.
Obviously and by your own admission, you don't know much about faults, earthquakes, fault locations, and geology in general. That's fine, not a ton of people do. But your general assumption that I'm incorrect without even bothering to see what the scientists say is off-putting, to put it nicely. This isn't really up for debate.
Water on a fault making earthquakes more likely is as easy a conclusion to reach in geology as 2+2=4 is in mathematics. It's basic. We know that water aids in the subduction of oceanic plates by lubricsting them deep beneath the ocean crust and allowing easier slippage. Why in the world would you expect it to cause movement there, but not at another tectonic boundary?
Not to mention the incredibly sharp increase in earthquake frequency in Oklahoma, which has fault lines running through parts of it. I know you want to blame that all on no one gathering data before this year, but come on man. That's crazy. It's up 2800% since fracking started. Do really think that, when the data is coupled with the basic geological knowledge that water makes plates slip, the increase in earthquakes is a coincidence? What sources are telling you that? They're bad sources
