Just in. Wow, this is a surprising verdict…
Story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20025626
This will put a chill on all sorts of forecasts where life and property are at risk.
Given this precedent, it likely puts an end to the science of earthquake forecasting…at least publicly.
But that’s a catch-22 also. If a scientist suspects a quake based on his measurements and experience, and says nothing about it for fear of retribution, does that make the scientist also guilty of manslaughter?
UPDATE: Roger Pielke Jr. supplies some background on the issue here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is just utter crap! You can’t predict Earthquakes in any reasonable sense. What the hell is wrong with law in Italy!
Very odd. Did the defendants mean to deceive when they gave a “falsely” reassuring statement? Or did they think the whole idea of earthquake forecasting is very imprecise anyway, and try to allay any unnecessary alarm?
Why not burn them at the stake?
It depends upon the full context. If this were a politically motivated pronouncement, because of worries about the cost to the government if an evacuation were to be required, for example, then the court decision is absolutely correct.
If there was compete dereliction of duty, if these “experts” didn’t take a serious look at the evidence, again, the decision may be correct.
If its because they were just wrong … well, hopefully the appeals court will clear that up with minimal delay.
The only way I can see them reasonably being held “guilty” of anything would be if they had some sort of financial interest in reassuring people: e.g. if they wanted another 24 hours to sell their homes or juggle their stocks. Simply making a wrong judgment call certainly shouldn’t count — unless we want all weather forecasters to have to pay malpractice insurance!
– MJM
Stupidity reaches a new low. It really is just politics. An extrapolation of the politics of AGW and now this scapegoat situation leads one to a very dark place.
Dear me. Things are going downhill faster than I thought. I suppose they’re lucky not to be burned at the stake.
Perhaps this legislation could be extended to cover non-appearance of alarmist claims concerning CAGW, boiling oceans, that sort of thing.
I could support that!
Which sets the precedent for skeptical scientists being convicted of manslaughter in an Italian court if a disaster deemed to have been caused or exacerbated by global warming takes lives.
I vaguely remember this story from its initial state when the scientists were charged. What a travesty of justice. How on earth is this non-sense allowed by the people of Italy? They should be ashamed and disgraced. Collossal idiocy knows no boundaries. The world truly is insane it seems.
Were they sceptical of earthquake prediction science? Six years in jail is about right for sceptics in the devoloping new world order. /sarc off
Did the Vatican give this ruling, how else could man be responsible for an act of Gaia, sorry God.
Michael J Alexander said: “This is just utter crap! You can’t predict Earthquakes in any reasonable sense. What the hell is wrong with law in Italy!”
I think the point is that they didn’t say “we don’t know” they told people that there wasn’t one due.
Maybe this will lead to some (hopefully climate) scientists being a little more humble about the level of their knowledge.
Soooo….what if they predicted a quake and the town was evacuated, but no quake happened? Do the scientists then owe restitution?
Heard an interview on the radio earlier. The interviewee a friend of one of the scientists suggested an over reliance in computer models
This will put a chill on all sorts of forecasts where life and property are at risk.
How do you figure? Seems to me a conviction for giving a “falsely reassuring statement” will be a strong incentive to increase alarmism, at least in Italy. It will certainly be used as an excuse for alarmism elsewhere, under the guise of the “precautionary principle”.
If a scientist suspects a quake based on his measurements and experience, and says nothing about it for fear of retribution, does that make the scientist also guilty of manslaughter?
Depending on local laws, it appears it may. That is only a half step removed from the circumstances of the current conviction.
Much less likely is that someone will be convicted of a serious crime for “crying wolf”. While alarmism may cause much greater damage (including deaths) than underemphasizing risks, attribution is typically much more difficult. And now, at least in Italy, one can point a finger and claim that the alarmism is the official policy. Together these will likely push toward more alarmism.
It seems they didn’t follow procedure and ignored this and that. Dunno. The story is just unfolding. Now, how about other forecast failures with serious damage to property and quality of life? Like, say…
PM said,
“I think the point is that they didn’t say “we don’t know” they told people that there wasn’t one due.
Maybe this will lead to some (hopefully climate) scientists being a little more humble about the level of their knowledge.”
Good point.
They can (should) of course appeal to higher courts and at worst, let the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handle the case.
Someone arrange a Climate Team conference in Italy for Ben Santer, Mike Mann, James Hansen, Lubchenko, et al.
The BBC had an interesting expert talking on this case who explained that it was the non expert and non scientific Govt offical who had given the reassurance. The six scientists were equivocal as scientists are when there is no compelling evidence at the time. It seems the defence did not separate out the culpability of the non expert Govt official and lumped tham all together with the experts.
A shocking decision. Care to predict an earthquake or a volcano in Italy? No thanks
tonyb
On the ‘up’ side, this should put a damper on public doomsday forecasting – if soothsayers are held responsible for what people do or do not do based on the ‘predicitions’ of the various oracles.
Eschatology will become an uninsurable activity.
“I think the point is that they didn’t say “we don’t know” they told people that there wasn’t one due. ”
But is that rally what they said?
The people who should be prosecuted are those who established the “National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks” (Italy’s Commission of Grand Risks) and who thought that was a good / workable idea!
Heads had to roll. And roll they did. All the scientists have to do is go to the European Court and have the absurd sentence overturned.
Going forward, I predict seismology as an occupation in Italy, will die a quick death!
This madness is.not as bad as it sounds. But it’s what it sounds that matters.