The author's don't seem to recognize that is only very recently that we likely are cataloging most to all magnitude 5 earthquakes. They don't seem to recognize

The author's don't seem to recognize that is only very recently that we likely are cataloging most to all magnitude 5 earthquakes. They don't seem to recognize that the completeness of the catalog will be different in different places, the magnitudes may not even be calculated in the same way. For example, the increase in seismicity in the first plot is due to better detections, did they detrend this before doing their analysis? They really don't seem to know anything about how earthquake catalogs are created. Then they create 5 day bins to correlate with the cosmic radiation. If an increase in cosmic radiation would cause an increase in seismicity "to not then 5 sigma" shouldn't it be most obvious in the cumulative count of radiation versus the cumulative count of earthquakes? Why would this only trigger larger magnitude events? Also, since cosmic rays are the cause and the observations of them are global, wouldn't you see a global increase in seismicity? In fact, wouldn't this change in seismicity be long noted by seismologists even without knowing anything about cosmic rays? They also seem to attribute mechanical stress of the crust to electromagnetic forces. Wouldn't you think someone would have noticed that their compass stopped working when an earthquake happens? Or aurora? With such high correlations you would think it would be easier to just shift the cosmic data by 15 days and show how well it all goes together.