After learning of the guilty verdict today, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. sends this along noting that “it is a little bit more complicated than not being able to
forecast earthquakes”.
From: bridges vol. 31, October 2011 / Pielke’s Perspective
By Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
In 1997 the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota, saw devastating flooding that caused billions of dollars in damage. Remarkably, that spring flood could be seen coming for months in advance, since the rising waters were the consequence of melting snow that had accumulated over the winter. Yet, even with the ability to anticipate the record flood crest long in advance, the community was taken by surprise by the flood, with some residents having to evacuate in the middle of the night as rising waters threatened their homes.
Following the disaster, I was a member of the US National Weather Service team sent to investigate the production and use of forecasts where something had obviously gone badly wrong. The lessons from that experience can help to shed some light on the current situation in L’Aquila, Italy, where seven officials are currently embroiled in a lawsuit brought by the affected community over statements the officials had made prior to the deadly earthquake in April, 2009.
On March 31, 2009, in L’Aquila, six days before a deadly magnitude 6.3 earthquake killed 308 people, Bernardo De Bernardinis, then deputy chief of Italy’s Civil Protection Department , and six scientists who were members of a scientific advisory body to the Department (the Major Risks Committee) participated in an official meeting and press conference in response to public concerns about short-term earthquake risks.
The public concerns were the result of at least two factors: One was the recent occurrence of a number of small earthquakes. A second factor was the prediction of a pending large earthquake issued by Gioacchino Giuliani, who was not a seismologist and worked as a technician at Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics.
The deputy chief and scientists held a short one-hour meeting and then a press conference, during which they downplayed the possibility of an earthquake. For instance, De Bernardinis went so far as to claim that the recent tremors actually reduced earthquake risks: “[T]he scientific community continues to confirm to me that in fact it is a favourable situation, that is to say a continuous discharge of energy.”[1] When asked directly by the media if the public should sit back and enjoy a glass of wine rather than worry about earthquakes, De Bernardinis acted as sommelier: “Absolutely, absolutely a Montepulciano doc. This seems important.”[2]
As news of the L’Aquila lawsuit has spread around the world, many scientists have rushed to the defense of the Committee by highlighting statements made during the meeting that emphasized the uncertainties in any sort of earthquake prediction. For example, Nature reported that at the one-hour meeting the scientists made the following nuanced statements: “A major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out,” and “in
recent times some recent earthquakes have been preceded by minor shocks days or weeks beforehand, but on the other hand many seismic swarms did not result in a major event,” and also “because L’Aquila is in a high-risk zone it is impossible to say with certainty that there will be no large earthquake.”[3] In the face of these various statements, the lawsuit takes note of the “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” in its allegations of culpability. While the case is still to be adjudicated under Italian law, some practical lessons can already be drawn by comparing the experience to that which I observed back in 1997 in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
One lesson is that the message sent by the government and its scientists might not be the same one received by the public. In the case of Grand Forks, the weather service issued a forecast of a flood crest of 49 feet – a record flood – two months in advance. The point, they explained to our investigative team, was to communicate to the public that they should expect a record flood and, thus, be very concerned. However, the previous record flood was only a few inches below 49 feet, so instead of causing concern, the forecast prompted the opposite reaction. Residents recalled that the earlier flood had caused relatively little damage, and concluded that a flood cresting only a few inches higher would be no big deal.
Similarly, in L’Aquila, the government and its scientists seemed to be sending a different message to the public than the one that was received. Media reports of the Major Risk Committee meeting and the subsequent press conference seem to focus on countering the views offered by Mr. Giuliani, whom they viewed as unscientific and had been battling in preceding months. Thus, one interpretation of the Major Risks Committee’s statements is that they were not specifically about earthquakes at all, but instead were about which individuals the public should view as legitimate and authoritative and which they should not.
If officials were expressing a view about authority rather than a careful assessment of actual earthquake risks, this would help to explain their sloppy treatment of uncertainties. Here, too, the North Dakota experience is relevant. The actual flood crest was 54 feet at Grand Forks, exceeding the 49-foot outlook by 5 feet, and caught the community by surprise as they had only built their levees to 51 feet. The average error in previous flood outlooks in the region was a very respectable 10% (about 5 feet, if applied to the 49-foot outlook), but this information was never shared with the public. When we asked officials why this information was not released with the forecast, they told us they were worried that if information about uncertainties was known then the public would lose confidence in the forecasts.
The L’Aquila court case has prompted much discussion and debate in the scientific community. Many scientists have explained that there is no possibility of offering accurate or useful earthquake forecasts, as was expressed in an open letter to Silvio Berlusconi signed by 5,000 scientists: “Years of research worldwide have shown that there is currently no scientifically accepted method for short-term earthquake prediction that
can reliably be used by Civil Protection authorities for rapid and effective emergency actions.”[4] Yet such a view is not universal in the scientific community. For instance, Stanford University issued a press release discussing the case in Italy and countering that earthquakes could in fact be anticipated in some cases. Greg Beroza, chair of Stanford’s Department of Geophysics, has called for more forecasts: “[W]e have to make earthquake forecasting as routine as weather forecasting.”[5]
This context holds several lessons for the scientific community. First, effective communication of nuance and uncertainty is difficult in the best of cases, and there is often a wide range of perspectives on the state of the science. But it becomes even more difficult when messages are being sent to the public via information that may be heard one way among experts and another among the public. When forecasters in Grand Forks intended to send a message of alarm, the public instead received a message of complacency. Similarly, scientists in L’Aquila seemed to want to send a message about authority and proper expertise, but the public received a message of complacency in the face of an ever-present risk.
Another lesson is that debates over forecasts and uncertainty often overshadow knowledge that is far more certain. Paul Somerville and Katharine Haynes of Macquarie University note wryly that “no action has yet been taken against the engineers who designed the buildings that collapsed and caused fatalities, or the government officials who were responsible for enforcing building code compliance.”[6]
The real tragedy of L’Aquila may not be that scientists led the public astray with their bumbled discussion of predictive science but, rather, that our broader obsession with predictions blinds us to the truths right before our eyes.
###
Roger Pielke, Jr. is the former director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado (2001-2007). He has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES).
References:
1. http://www.economist.com/node/21529006
trial-opens-against-scientists-accused-giving-misleading-big-132746544.html
Reference for quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/20/italian-scientists-trial-predict-earthquake
3. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100622/full/465992a.html
4. www.mi.ingv.it/open_letter/
5. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/systematic-earthquake-forecast-093011.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Justthinkin says:
October 22, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Matt says:
October 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Criminal and / or civil courts are not the place for holding government employees acountable for acts legaly within their scope of duties.
===========
Why not? Employees of private companies enjoy no such immunity. Why should government employees be held above the law that applies to everyone else?
If instead they knew they were accountable, then they might just be a bit more careful about making unsupported claims to curry political favor at the taxpayers risk and expense.
Are we seriously to believe that no one would be willing to work for private industry because they don’t have immunity? And therefore government employees need immunity?
The scientists got themselves into trouble by saying “don’t listen to the other guy, we are the experts”. The court held them accountable on that basis, as it should.
Imagine for a moment someone yells “fire” in a crowded building. You are in the building and stand up to say “don’t listen to that person, I’m the fire chief, there is no fire”.
If you are the fire chief, you had best be damn sure there is no fire before you stand up and contradict the person that just yelled fire. Because if there is a fire you are going to find yourself in deep do-do.
In this case Gioacchino Giuliani stood up and yelled “fire”. The 6 scientists and Bernardo De Bernardinis stood up and said “don’t listen to him, we are the experts, there is no fire”. Just before the “fire” burned down the town.
ImranCan:
At October 23, 2012 at 7:16 am
Well, if that were what they had done then your “wrestling” would be understandable. But – according to Pielke’s account – it is not what they did.
They were rightly prosecuted and convicted because it was their job to make a scientific prediction but instead they made an unscientific assertion for reasons of personal interest with the result that the Earthquake’s body count was increased.
Richard
ImranCan says:
October 23, 2012 at 7:16 am
What is going to be next ? Taking weather forecasters to court because it rained when they predicted sun ?
=========
What if one forecaster predicted rain, but another one stood up and said “don’t listen to that guy, I’m the government expert, it is not going to rain”
On that basis you then scheduled an outdoor activity that was ruined on account of rain, that ended up costing you millions of dollars. Would you not want to hold the “government expert” accountable?
In point of fact the solution lies in realizing that the last person on earth you can trust is the “government expert”. Especially government experts that hide behind their immunity.
Governments fear the people, so they routinely withhold information from the public, to better “protect” the public.
I think a lot of people are drawing the wrong connection between this case and the climate alarmists.
If there was a parallel, it wouldn’t be the alarmists that get hauled away, it would be the skeptics. This Italian situation is exactly what the “Red Button” crowd want. Countering dire predictions with assurances? Defusing panic over CO2-induced disruptions? Trying to provide a sense of scale and reality to out-of-control alarm? ALL would be actionable if some weather event occurred and the wrong people started with the connection between it and climate change.
Personally I think this is so far beyond the pale… In an ideal world they would lose their jobs and possibly be reprimanded for making strongly worded assertions of safety where none was warranted (from my perspective they needed less joviality and more “we’re not certain, but chances are low”). People believe in “scientists”. More so, apparently, than priests.
Either way – Scientists could all do with a bit less arrogance and stop trying to be “rock stars”. Yeah, I won’t mention any names, but you all know which NASA types I mean…
CodeTech:
At October 23, 2012 at 8:23 am you say
I would appreciate your explaining that because I am at a loss to understand it.
A professional driver is charged with manslaughter if deaths result from him driving without due care and attention.
These Italian guys accepted the job of informing the public on the scientific understanding of risk. Deaths resulted from their doing their jobs without due care and attention. They were rightly convicted of manslaughter.
But you say they should not have been prosecuted.
Why do you think scientists should be held to lesser account than professional drivers?
And if a scientist augments his income by doing some professional driving in his spare time then should his immunity from prosecution apply to his driving?
Simply, I fail to understand why scientists should not be expected to perform their duties with the same due care and attention as everybody else. And when they undertake jobs that have risks then they should be held to account for lack of due diligence as everybody else is.
Richard
Richard:
If the scientists CAUSED the earthquake, then prosecute away.
If the truck driver CAUSED the crash, then prosecute away.
If the scientists failed to predict while using current best practices or severely underestimated the dangers, dangers which EVERYONE in that region ought to have been aware of from birth, then significantly less arduous punishment than jail is warranted. Loss of employment, loss of status and prestige.
If the truck driver failed to account for the possibility of road closures during winter due to avalanche, jail is hardly warranted. He could lose his job, though.
Please compare appropriate types of fruit. Apple != Orange.
In all honesty, what should they have done differently?
This incident DOES underscore the fact that predictions are predictions, and are based on probability derived from experience. So they got it wrong. I’m 99.9% certain that if they had known with greater certainty that the large earthquake would occur, they would have been screaming from the rooftops. They didn’t.
Challenger launched because the people who didn’t want to see o-ring problems overrode the engineer who loudly argued that a failure would occur. The problem was not the engineers or the decision makers, the problem was the entire NASA chain of command.
Which is more wrong: that people believe seismologists can accurately predict earthquakes, or that when they fail to they should be criminally liable? Because BOTH are wrong.
@ferd berple,
Do you honestly belive that there would be a criminal prosecution in this case if they weren’t government employees?, If a private firm had made the same prediction in this case there would be no liability because there is no established duty and even if there was a prosecution it would most likely be against the firm and not the individual employees.
Another difference with government vs private workers in a situation like this is that in this case the scientist are effectively being prosecuted by their employer. A scientist or engineer working for a private firm can not be put in jail by their employer they can only be fired.
Many are saying that this will promote alarmism. It will, once and once only.
The problem is that this case has set a precident. In the future if they predict a big quake and the government orders an evacutation but no quake happens people are going to come back saying we have lost profits and lost wages plus all the costs of the evacuation itself and demand the scientist be prosecuted for fraud and there will be no basis to say it’s different this time.
Earthquake prediction is at best a guessing game. No amount of dilligence will get you an answer that is better than 50/50 chance of being right.
In this situation the only legaly safe options are to refuse to take a job with that department or to answer all queries with “No Comment”
CodeTech:
Thankyou for your reply to me at October 23, 2012 at 10:29 am.
I sincerely think your answer completely misunderstands the issue. This apparent misunderstanding is clearly displayed by your asking me
I answered that in my previous post at October 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm. In that post I specifically stated the least they should have done and compared that to what they did do.
A jail sentence of 4 years seems a small punishment for their crime.
Please note that I worked as a research scientist in a UK government-owned research establishment for 3 decades. I and my colleagues fully understood how we were accountable for the proper conduct of our duties.
Richard
Matt:
At October 23, 2012 at 10:29 am you say
Earthquake prediction is at best a guessing game. No amount of dilligence will get you an answer that is better than 50/50 chance of being right.
In this situation the only legaly safe options are to refuse to take a job with that department or to answer all queries with “No Comment”
No! That completely fails to understand the issue. Please read my post at October 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm.
Richard
richardscourtney/23 oct 7:08 – please take into account the difference between meteorology and seismology. Earthquakes are vastly worse predictable than storm systems, besides: earthquakes are rare, sudden, often isolated incidents. Their predictably is comparable to trying to state to a minute hours beforehand when the icicle will thaw off en come crashing down.
While the Italian seismologists said like ‘sip your wine and enjoy in peace’ they had also emphasized the uncertainties and unpredictability of quakes. Michael Fish did not even express uncertainty anywhere, contrary so.
This makes Michael Fish even more ‘guilty’.
I think the effect of this court’s ruling could be to keep scientists from speaking out in the future. If they consider the chance 100% for a disaster going to happen they will tell, but if they feel the chance is only 99% they will keep mum and actually start researching and talking about something irrelevantly else. It is their best survival strategy. Given the fact that in the natural/empirical sciences the margin of error is always larger than zero the future of science is lots of babble about nothing or how to make the lovely hair of My Little Pony more resistant to brushing.
/cRR
RR Kampen:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me which is at October 23, 2012 at 11:18 am.
The rate of posts to this thread is such that I am not copying your post here because others can scroll up to find it with no difficulty. I am replying to that post.
I really am struggling to understand why so many – including it seems you – are misunderstanding this issue.
You say that earthquake prediction is inherently uncertain. Yes! that is the point.
The Italian Committee claimed to have a certainty of no imminent earthquake which is not available to existing scientific understanding of earthquakes. ferd berple gives a good analogy of their behaviour in his post at October 23, 2012 at 7:41 am. I wish I had thought of his analogy because it is so good that I don’t see how anybody can fail to understand it.
There is substantial difference between each of these options
(a) we don’t think it will happen but it could
and
(b) we don’t think it will happen
and
(c) it is not going to happen.
The only extreme option is (c) and that is the one the Italian criminals provided.
Option (a) is the scientific answer and, therefore, it is the answer they were payed to provide.
But they said the non-scientific option (c) and people died as a result.
They did NOT get a scientific prediction wrong. They did not give a scientific prediction – which was their duty – but instead they gave a non-scientific opinion as a method to advance/protect their position of authority.
The Michael Fish comparison is not applicable. He was a weather forecaster who gave a weather forecast which said there would not be a hurricane. He was not a member of a specialist committee tasked with disaster warning. His prediction was technically right: there was no hurricane. But there was a disaster because gusts of hurricane force winds occurred. Importantly, Michael Fish made the best he could whereas the Italian criminals deliberately made a prediction which they knew – or should have known – was NOT the best prediction they could have made. In both cases the prediction was wrong and people died. But the difference is that Michael Fish made a scientific prediction but the Italians – who were tasked to make a scientific prediction – did not and that is why they are criminals.
Richard
I still don’t think we have enough facts to pass detailed comment. However, I will say that IMO, this comes down to two key issues which should not be mixed.
1) Scientists should keep to science – reporting in a suitably scientific way
2) Politics and risk assessment of scientific findings (as in application to the public) should be undertaken by the government. Whether we like ot or not, the government is the one pulling the strings.
Now, if the scientists got embroiled in the politics, and/or the politicians got embroiled in the science – this would/could/has lead to ineffective communication. There are definite parallels to the climate science gaffaw in this respect……..we have alarmist scientists claiming ‘we should run for the hills’ (metaphorically speaking) and we have skeptical scientists who say ‘calm down dear, we don’t know the details’ – the appropriate ‘side’ is taken up by the politicos/NGO’s according to their own agendas….
Re – earthquake prediction – it is absolutely non-definitive. About the best one could hope for is something like San Francisco, where a main faultline exists and it WILL slip – sometime – one day in the next week or the next hundred years or so! No more significantly accurate advice can be drawn… and this applies pretty much to anywhere in the world where major faults are present.
In this case, the prequake tremors could indeed have been considered a precursor to a biggy – but also could be considered as minor tectonic adjustments – which happen all the time, and indeed may have dissipated some of the stored stresses. Without complete and in situ total stress analysis of the faults and stress build up, we simply could not predict either way…and even then with some massive degree of uncertainty. So, what to do?, Well, based on the outcome of this ‘trial’ – I’d say every seismologist should simply tell every person in a seismologically active area to ‘get out’! That is based entirely on the precautionary principle and is factually and completely correct – even if it’s a one in a billion chance – it is still the correct advice! Dumbing it down, in whatever way – doesn’t alter the primary fact – its an earthquake area – and we CANNOT predict when they will strike……end of….
So, in defence of the scientists, for example; I’d like to know how many people evacuated the area AFTER the first tremors – if not, why not? It doesn’t matter that someone said a big one wasn’t likely – it is COMMON SENSE to know that one could be possible and it is an individuals choice of how to act/react. Imagine if you and your family were living in that area, in a newly built ‘quake’ resistant house – you’d probably stay around,. feling relatively ‘safe’. But if you lived in a ricketty old cottage, you’d think differently – wouldn’t you? Do we want a complete ‘nanny’ state? (Anyone saying yes – had better stay inside, because you know that you can get run over by a bus or car, don’t you? etc)
/rant
richardscourtney says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Richard, I agree with your stated view in that the scientific response/opinion should have been the correct one (a – in your post) but this ignores the ‘input’ of the politicos on this committee, and as yet, we do not know what those inputs were. We have seen the IPCC ‘twist’ scientists words – and it is quite feasible this is a similar type of deal. If the scientists have been weak or feeble and have knowingly allowed ‘false’ representation, then I do believe they deserve to be criminalised (but bear in mind that they may have had no time to correct the issued statements either!) However, I would find it rather incredible that this was deliberate malpractise (but I do accept it may well be possible), and so I remain in their defence until this malpractise has been demonstrated – which is currently not clear from the article(s).
Kev-in-Uk:
re your post at October 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm.
Yes, we do not know the input of politicians to the Committee. And, importantly, we are discussing Pelke’s account of the case which – with no insult intended towards him – may be misleading us about important facts.
However, Pielke says it was De Bernardinis who made the “drink wine” comment at the press conference. It was not a politician.
The convicted persons are
Franco Barberi, head of Serious Risks Commission
Enzo Boschi, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics
Giulio Selvaggi, director of National Earthquake Centre
Gian Michele Calvi, director of European Centre for Earthquake Engineering
Claudio Eva, physicist
Mauro Dolce, director of the the Civil Protection Agency’s earthquake risk office
Bernardo De Bernardinis, former vice-president of Civil Protection Agency’s technical department
I find it hard to accept that people with their scientific knowledge and their experience of interacting with politicians could have behaved as they did merely because of some political pressure. If they did then that makes their crime worse.
And, as a Committee, they shared collective responsibility. If any one of them overstepped the agreed position of the Committee then each of the rest had a duty to correct it.
Richard
The actual flood crest was 54 feet at Grand Forks, exceeding the 49-foot outlook by 5 feet, and caught the community by surprise as they had only built their levees to 51 feet. The average error in previous flood outlooks in the region was a very respectable 10% (about 5 feet, if applied to the 49-foot outlook), but this information was never shared with the public. When we asked officials why this information was not released with the forecast, they told us they were worried that if information about uncertainties was known then the public would lose confidence in the forecasts.
I have two comments.
First, this shows that knowledge may be deemed pretty accurate and reliable for most purposes, yet also be unreliable or too inaccurate for some particular purpose. That was the case here, and I think that is the case with much of climate science.
Second, the climate alarmists frequently assert that the future may even be worse than their projections forecast, given the amount of random variation and unknowns at every level of analysis in every weather system studied. That was the case here. Over the last few years I have become increasingly more skeptical of the claims made by the climate catastrophists, but I think we should remember at least the possibility that events may turn out worse than predicted.
Thank you to Dr Pielke Jr. for a good post.
It’s a worthy topic of discussion if it gets all sides to think about what the role of the public officials is supposed to be. Are they there to educate and inform citizens so that people are better able to make the decisions and take actions that are most appropriate for themselves?
Or are the officials there to decide on our behalf what is best, and then choose the right way to “communicate” such we will do what they have determined is best [however well intentioned and informed they may be]?
richardscourtney
“They were rightly prosecuted and convicted because it was their job to make a scientific prediction but instead they made an unscientific assertion for reasons of personal interest with the result that the Earthquake’s body count was increased.”
Except that you can not possibly know this.
A) We don’t know what a proper scientific prediction would have been.
B) You can not know with any certanty that if they had made what you consider a proper scientific prediction of “We don’t think it will happen but it could” that any one would have acted any differently and there would have been fewer deaths.
C) If they came back and said OMG Evacuate Now, it is likely that the ensuing panic itself would have resulted in lost lives. By your theory they could be prosecuted for this as well.
There are simply too many what ifs in your argument to support criminal or civil liability.
Matt.
richardscourtney says:
October 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm
I agree in principal, but perhaps my stance is simply more sympathetic than yours!
re – the committee action aspect – I am sure you realise than many things ‘said’ by committee are not always supported to the same degree by its actual members. In the case of the science here, the nuances of the conveyed message are largely in the eye/ear of the reader/listener. It may be factually correct to state (as they did) that a major earthquake was considered unlikely but still possible, etc – but the interpretation of such a fact is dependent on the mindset of the reader! If you are a media reporter, how would you transmit that information? how would you slant it according to your own beliefs?
My point is that in this instance, the media must play an important part in transmittal of the message without bias too!
as for the comedic style wine reference – it is difficult to comment without fuller details and actual context. Also, think of it another way, in that that throwaway comment was from one person in press conference, not all of them by agreement. The ‘wine’ comment was clearly his personal view – not necessarily that of the whole committee! Since it is being used as some kind of brush to tar the committee with – it seems important to know the context of the statement, don’t you think?
Matt:
At October 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm you wrongly assert to me
Bollocks!
I stated it in my post at October 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm and you quote it. It is
We don’t think it will happen but it could.
But they said
It is not going to happen.
Then you say
Not relevant. They were employed to give scientific information for public use. They chose to not do that but to give unscientific advice instead. Many people were panicking, and it is reasonable to assume that some would have left if not reassured by the unscientific advice. The possibility that the body count was increased by that unscientific advice is sufficient to condemn them.
And you say
Yes! If they had said that then they would have been equally guilty. People may have been killed in the scramble to leave when there was no valid scientific basis for them having said that. But so what? Their clear duty was to provide scientific advice. It was NOT their job to make statements with the purpose of assuaging or increasing the already existing public concern. Provision of the scientific advice may have assuaged or increased the public concern but it was the responsibility of other public servants (e.g. politicians) to manage any effects of that. The public’s ability to decide what they wanted to do was distorted by the Committee deliberately not providing the scientific information it existed to provide but stating a falsehood instead.
Their clear duty was to provide the only scientific advice which was
We don’t think an earthquake is about to happen but it could.
But they said
An earthquake is not going to happen.
As a result people probably died who otherwise would have left the area before the earthquake happened. And the shocking thing is that the criminals only each got a mere 4 years in jail.
Richard
Kev-in-Uk:
At October 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm you ask me
The ‘wine’ comment was clearly his personal view – not necessarily that of the whole committee! Since it is being used as some kind of brush to tar the committee with – it seems important to know the context of the statement, don’t you think?
Yes, indeed I do. And I am assuming the trial court examined that context.
Please note that we are discussing the report by Pielke. With no disrespect to him, we are forced to assume his report is adequate for us to discuss the issues. I am assuming his mention of the ‘wine comment’ is an indication that it was significant to the court case.
In the absence of the trial transcript we can only make these assumptions which – like all assumptions – may be wrong.
The importance of our discussion is that it examines what is, what could be, and what should be the accountability of scientists who accept positions as public servants. Please remember that for politicians ‘Scientists are on tap and not on top’. It is the business of scientists to give true scientific advice and nothing else. Politicians use information from many sources, not only scientists.
For example, in the specific case we are examining, the advice of the Committee told the politicians to do nothing. The correct scientific advice would have informed the politicians to seek information from emergency services about their preparedness just in case an earthquake happened.
Richard
Several years ago I was “loaned” to the Department of Defense to manage a system for destroying explosively configured non-stockpile chemical weapons (i.e. potentially armed weapons found in public spaces).
As matter of course this led to my participation in a number of public meetings prior to destroying the items in question. Naturally, I received training in “High Concern Communications” prior to engaging the public. The training was invaluable – to the extent that I continue to keep the training courses “tips” card in my wallet.
Looking over Mr. Pielke accounts of the “Major Risks Committee” public meeting, and re-examining my “tips” card, it appears to me the Committee violated a series basic communication rules. Specifically one should avoid: humor, jargon, hedges, guarantees, risk comparisons, and taking it personally.
This is well illustrated by the following:
Where De Bernardinis states “[T]he scientific community continues to confirm to me that in fact it is a favorable situation, that is to say a continuous discharge of energy.” – violates the guarantee, hedge, and risk comparison rules.
When asked directly by the media if the public should sit back and enjoy a glass of wine rather than worry about earthquakes, De Bernardinis states: “Absolutely, absolutely a Montepulciano doc. This seems important.” – violates the guarantee and humor rules.
Even if the Committee as a whole found it “necessary” to counter the prediction of a pending large earthquake issued by Gioacchino Giuliani – This violated the rule of taking things personally.
My take-away is that the Italy’s Civil Protection Department leadership and staff was, at the very least, inept and poorly trained in the art of public communications.
Regards,
Kforestcat
richardscourtney
You put forward “We don’t think it will happen but it could” as a possible statement., But with out access to their data and methods, we don’t know that that would specifically have been the answer had the run a proper analysis. Further, they could have made your prefered statement with no more dilligance / analysis than what they used. So apparently, the issue for you for the border between criminal liability and not has in fact nothing to do with the level of dilligance or analysis, nothing to do with the process they followed, but mearly a difference in wording.
I’m sorry, but if this case was being tried in the US and I was on the jury unless you could point to a specific victim and show beyond a reasonable doubt that that specific person woulnd not have died but for the wording they used, my vote would be NOT GUILTY.
Matt:
Your post at October 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm puts words in my mouth and has no relation to anything I wrote.
“A difference in wording” is not relevant.
1.
They were charged to give scientific information, but they dis not.
2.
They provided information that any scientific knowledge concerning earthquake predictability would refute.
3.
They lied and people died.
Only 4 years jail seems a light sentence.
Richard
It is frightening that given the known uncertainty of earthquake prediction the Italian scientists should be jailed but with climate science where predictions claimed to be certain have actually visibly failed after billions of dollars have been spent on combating it has not resulted in even the threat of a trial indeed it has resulted in police action in the UK to try and find out who dared to expose the cheats.