This is what I was talking about it being an "alarmist" site rather than a conspiracy theory site (although it seems the author is willing to take that path), as he talks about pending quakes as posing a great danger yet most of the quakes he documents are under 4.5, and he makes it seem more dangerous than it is.
I concur. As with so many 'news' outlet today, this is an alarmist site, feeding off peoples' fear of natural disasters. A few comments:
'Predicting' M3 earthquakes in a region is hardly a difficult task. These are relatively abundant earthquakes and if you just look at seismic risk maps, you could do the same.
There are a lot of 'anthropic' M3 earthquakes and they have been going on for years. The were often caused by water or waste injection wells and mine collapses etc. Nowadays, fracking is getting to be more common.
There is an argument that lots of low magnitude earthquakes are better than one big one. It has been proposed that we initiate small quakes in high risk areas, but who's going to take that chance?
I really have a hard time correlating what's happening in LA with seismicity events (or lack of) in Vancouver. The crust of the earth just doesn't transmit stresses that far. Keep in mind also that the events occur on different faults and exhibit different stress fields. The San Andreas is strike slip plate boundary, Vancouver is a convergent boundary and the Juan de Fuca ridge is a divergent boundary ...
Now, if you want to discuss earthquake related to earth tides, that's a different story.
At the same time, there are periods where volcanism is more pronounced and it may have something to do with heat flows from the mantle/core. That would affect earthquakes and volcanoes, since plate tectonics is responsible for the location of both.