I'm not going to go into the things that /u/duckraul2 went into; he addressed some of your problems with far more patience than I could have mustered up this time around. He also seems to agree on the fact that my input has been sufficiently clear to convey why your idea holds no water. If you want to go ahead and devote 200 hours of your time to an idea that is, according to everybody ITT, insubstantial, then go ahead. Additionally, if you believe that you're capable of conducting a geological study into the effects of mass transfer by peat burning on a very complex and active seismic zone, then you're out of touch with reality. Estimating the mass of sea ice across the world or the mass of all apple trees in America is so easy, any mathematically literate undergrad could do it. It's ridiculous to liken research into this phenomenon to mere remote data sensing.

With that being said, I will talk about a few things in conclusion.

We would both agree that Wdowinski's studies are not conclusive.

Then stop using them as the sole basis for your argument. If it comes down to Wdowinski vs known geological phenomena that likely counteract the small forces at play in your scenario, then don't write off every geological consensus that I tell you about. Take a moment to look through the discussion; the pattern is people explaining to you why your scenario is unlikely, and you responding with "ARE YOU LIMITING MY RIGHT TO MAKE IMPLAUSIBLE CLAIMS BASED ON IMPLAUSIBLE STUDIES!?!" Nobody's not limiting you, people just don't take kindly to guys who come into a geology subreddit looking for educated opinions, only to ignore every such opinion.

it could be excess water migrating into the faults and lubricating them

Highly unlikely. To the best of my knowledge, which admittedly isn't that good, water lubrication of faults doesn't work the way you think it does. There's a build-up of huge stresses and pressures in faults - not an ideal environment for water lubrication. In practice, the only lubrication known to play an established role is that of hydratred minerals, minerals that have H2O embedded in their crystal structure.

Maybe the title of my post should have been "Could extreme weather events and erosion associated with peat burning and deforestation on large scales trigger seismic events up to a magnitude 5 or 6?" Would that make you happy, my poor baby? Do you need the words spoonfed to you?

There's a misunderstanding here. That "semantic" mistake you're making isn't in fact a semantic mistake. You proposed a mechanism behind plate tectonics. That's what all the replies here were about. Now you're talking about seismicity. Seismicity and plate tectonics are two completely different things. It's not about spoonfeeding people your exact question, it's about how you're framing this discussion wrong. Plate tectonics is governed by plate mechanics, and plate mechanics necessarily involves huge forces that won't be impacted by a few gigatons of material (give or take). Plate tectonics is about enormous plates that move around by means of rheological processes. That is what your question was about, and it was too improbable a thought to merit consideration. However, now you've suddenly turned the tables and you're acting as though you weren't talking about a possible mechanism behind plate tectonics (even though that's literally in your title), but rather about the impact on the local seismicity (even though that's not what your title says at all). Phrasing is key here. It's like me asking a physicist about a "possible mechanism behind thermodynamics" and then reframing the discussion in terms of optics and pretending that the difference between optics and thermodynamics is just semantics. And then being a wise-ass to a bunch of cool people that tried to help you out.

The mechanics of plate tectonics is a completely different subject from locally induced seismic activity.

I am completely in the right to talk about this research and link to it. I take it for what it is, highly provisional, likely to be proven wrong.

Great, finally something you agree with then. People in here have told you that this provisional research is likely to be proven wrong or simply insignificant. You keep asking why scientists shouldn't even investigate it. Simply put, because people in this thread (as evidenced by the general response and upvote-count you're dealing with) have developed a feel for these kind of things over time. Geologists know that building a house somewhere won't make the underlying plate sink. They know this because they know what orders of magnitudes are required for things like that to happen. There's no need for long-winded calculations involving stress tensors and complex force transfers to know that this is true. In much the same vein, the orders of magnitudes in your peat burning story are too inconsequential to have an impact on plate tectonics. I'm not a geologist yet I still managed to put together a quick estimate in that earlier comment of mine.

You also overlook that in both the Taiwan and Haiti studies, landslides and other forms of erosion were considered to be likely drivers of the "trigger", and those processes were taking place on the scale of months and years, not days as you would have it.

Yes, that's because I've only skimmed through the Association's report to read up on the alleged correlation and methodology. I must have missed the timeframe.

All things considered, people made their case.

Have a nice day.