The comment by Varotsos and Uyeda (2008) (VU hereafter) does not have much to do with our article, which reports electromagnetic data and their implications prior to, during, and following the 2004 M 6 Parkfield earthquake (EQ). In fact, our article did not include any extensive discussion of the possible flaws in the seismic electric signal (SES) approach to EQ prediction. The four main points VU discuss in their comment are from a summary sentence in the introduction that is preceded by the phrase “controversy about these (SES) results exists because (1), ... (2) ... (4),” where (1)–(4) are the...

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.