To his credit, it doesn't appear to have been discussed elsewhere, at least not in this form.
If you follow the various papers on the subject though, it's not as clear cut as Ryan might think it is, where the authors deem it something to explore to see if there is indeed a link, rather than flat out stating 'here is how the word works'.
We do however go back to the point I made before, what relevance does it have to 2012? Far as I can see, absolutely nothing. The papers do not address the end of the world, they do not claim that large scale global events will happen under certain situations, and I think I recall seeing a probability/accuracy of 15-20%, and only for earthquakes of certain sizes, so to say it's a certainty would be wrong, and those are figures after more than a decade of study.
If there's a clear link, there's a clear link, science is advanced. If there's no clear link, science is advanced in knowing where not to look. Above all, to stress the point, I fail to see why this needs to be discussed on a 2012 forum.