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
So applying to AGW, how long do we have to wait until someone sues for economic damages caused by policies driven by a flawed theory??
I seriously doubt that will happen, but I do agree with those who say this verdict could have serious negative repercussions on the willingness of professionals to share their knowledge for fear of law suits.
Whatever happened to the act of God?
Impact will vary by country depending upon many cultural and legal factors, but I’ll speculate that the influence will be to encourage scientists and officials to make more alarmist but vague “warnings” without testable predictions (as if we don’t have too many of those already!).
i.e., to the extent that scientists and officials may sense or expect legal peril they will want to have issued some kind of warning yet nothing so specific that they can be sued or prosecuted for encouraging people to over-react, either.
So there will be a lot more vague “danger warnings” sans testable predictions….
“Sometime in the coming years there may be a storm…. earthquake….. tornado….. tsunami…… someday…. maybe”
Take note, I have today, instructed my solicitors to take action that, in the event of my death in circumstances that can be attributed to or are associated with the misreporting or the inaccurate stating of weather events; that Julia Slingo or whoever at the Met Office state that the event cannot or will not happen in the past, present or future actually happens within a reasonable time from a contrary statement being reasonably stated in comparison to or by Accuweather or Weatheraction dot com
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Despite an anti-Mann comment on the previous thread, this really shouldn’t have happened. No-one should jail scientists for incorrect forecasts, unless the forecasts are based on provable dishonesty. Like yelling “fire!” in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one.
Dunno what happens if there is a fire and you keep silent….
p.s. Just like too much of the climate discourse already…… we will get endless cautions and warnings of peril about climate and weather, natural disasters and Mama Nature, but less and less that can be falsified.
Coincidentally, today the media in Spain are telling us about a publication that has just appeared in Nature Geoscience, in which we read the sentence:
“Our results imply that anthropogenic activities could influence how and when earthquakes occur”
This is disgusting, of course. Though I hear that one of the scientists had made many political enemies ’cause he’s kind of a jerk. Is it a surprise that politics would trump science?
Did the scientists conspire to shut down critical views of their methods and results ?
Might I suggest a cursory glance at Wikipedia?
“Inspector Montalbano is an engaging hero – honest, decent and loyal. He has his own way of doing things, and his superiors regard him as something of a loose cannon. One of the strengths of the novels is Montalbano’s ability to navigate through a murky world, a world of shady connections and favours owed and owing, without compromising himself beyond what he can live with. There is a great deal of humor in his character, but the subtext is hard criticism of the social and political situation of both the Sicilian and Italian contexts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Montalbano
It would seem that Italian law is not justice. Italy does not try anybody by a jury of peers: everyone is judged by professional judges or by a panel of judges (three or five or nine).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure
If they had said “We can’t tell you if there is a big earthquake coming but there have been cases like this in the past that did not result in killer quakes” Would anyone have evacuated? How do they know that anyone died because of the “false reassurance” given?
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.”
—————————–
No, that’s not what happened at all. I was listening to a full report on the radio this evening.
The scientists put out a report giving the probability of an earthquake, not that there wasn’t one due. This was filed with the proper authorities and is in no way taken to be derelict or negligent by other seismologists.
The problem was what happened after the report was filed. A non scientific member of the seismic team, acting as the PR, gave a media briefing. He stated – in his own opinion – that as there had been some minor tremors, this would act as a safety valve, reducing the likelihood of a major quake. The scientists had nothing to do with this statement, and it is bizarre that they should stand condemned from the ill conceived words of a non scientist.
I think that Italy will pay a price for this in terms of its credibility. One hopes that such a miscarriage would not happen in a true western democracy.
The ‘defendants’ in this case is the same crew who had completely dismissed the radon data and warnings from Giampaolo Giuliani whose prediction, as it turned out, was off by 9 days and 2 magnitudes..
Maybe Giampaolo is a crackpot but data is data.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/06/italy-earthquake-predicted
“Italy’s major risks committee met on 31 March to reassure the city’s population that the seismic activity was nothing to be alarmed about. “The tremors being felt by the population are part of a typical sequence [which is] absolutely normal in a seismic area like the one around L’Aquila,” the civil protection agency said in a statement that evening.”
See also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5114139/Italian-earthquake-experts-warnings-were-dismissed-as-scaremongering.html
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-06/news/17919457_1_earthquake-italian-premier-silvio-berlusconi-predict
This is insanity! I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be a forcaster in their country.
This is an example of mob mentality at work. They wanted someone to punish but God was not available, so they punished these scientists. Even if the scientists had correctly predicted a quake and had gotten anyone to believe them, they still couldn’t have pin-pointed when. So how would that have changed the outcome?
an absolute disgrace if it is it appears from the bbc report. As a geologist, if I were in Italy, I would simply REFUSE to pass comment or assessment on any such issues, let the dimwits feck it up for themselves….
I applaud that there is accountability in the Italy justice system (excluding the Mafia of course, LOL) but there is no logic in applying such accountability to such an undefinable subject matter. What next? Their doctors won’t bother diagnosing and/or treating people for diseases, in case they still die? FFS, this is deffo batshit crazy!
regards
omnologos says:
October 22, 2012 at 11:57 am
sorry, but you’ll have to explain that comment for me!
Lack of precise information makes the scientists on trial story hard to get my arms around. Were the scientists politically motivated into not making a catastrophic prediction? Were the scientists guilty of not having precise information on when and where and how much an earthquake would strike? Did over reliance upon computer models cloud their judgement? Did the scientists run off and hide when they should have been out in the field making precise measurements?
Other questions relate to the judicial system in Italy. Are judges politically motivated, making feel good verdicts instead of what the law states? Do the laws of Italy, in this area of jurisprudence make government officials vulnerable/immune to criminal prosecution?
One wonders.
This ruling seems to place scientists who make scientific predictions, or, in this case lack of predictions, on a similar liability footing as physicians, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, contractors, etc. It appears to me that scientists will be held accountable for their predictions. This would entail providing an estimation of risk, likelihood, and uncertainty. The ruling would make scientists provide the basis for their prediction and the data behind their assessment: transparency. The scientists would need to provide records of their deliberations, and most importantly, an airing of opposing or dissenting opinions. Disclosure of conflicts of interests along with timely updates would be required as well.
Its hard for me to understand this ruling with the lack of precise information. If the outcome is scientific transparency, well, maybe not so bad
Here comes the Italian Inquisition…
I guess it’s easier to put sismologists in jail than catch Cosa Nostra bosses…
In Australia, a dam constructed for flood mitigation was progressively converted to storage by ‘progressive green’ governments ‘canning’ further water supply dams whilst allowing a Los Angeles style sprawl. It was alleged the engineers under political pressure subsequently allowed the dam to fill to dangerous levels despite forecasts of more rain. The subsequent emergency release of dam water helped flood Brisbane.
A lawyer’s banquet!
Michael Fish wasn’t jailed.
For non-UK residents, he was the weather forecasting face of the BBC and….well, it’s a long story, but he was blamed for not alerting us to devastating gales (the ‘hurricane’) in 1987.
The scientists were found guilty of claiming there would not be an earthquake, not for failing to predict it. There is an arrogance in the scientific community when it comes to scientific cynicism. There were other scientists who provided evidence that an earthquake was imminent, and then the cynics (without evidence) claimed there would not be an earthquake. I think the Italian decision was correct and warranted.
In the end, if you are in a position of authority and do not have evidence to back up your view, then you should not be giving one.
I would rather be caught with errors in earthquake predictions than try to predict building standards in a given area and the percentage of structures that will fail from that distributions of standards of construction and upkeep.
According to the BBC “The seven – all members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks – were accused of having provided “inexact, incomplete and contradictory” information about the danger of the tremors felt ahead of 6 April 2009 quake, Italian media report.”
I was not aware that earthquake forecasts were available that are exact, complete and consistent. Can anyone name a single earthquake that has been forecast so as to allow people affected to move to somewhere safer?
This is the apex of modern society’s inability to deal with risk–the TV culture meets the nanny state. We have doomsayers second guessing scientists, and they have no difficulty in spreading their ignorance and populist tripe to the public. The mass media lap it up and keep it coming from all sides. We have populist politicians who are brain dead to anything having to do with reality or science. And we have a society that believes life should be and can be made free from risk. The population is terrified of anything that moves, and hangs on the last word of any number of self-pronounced experts.
So, nuclear power has been banned in two referenda, power lines are cancer-causing, cell phone towers are dangerous, fracking caused tremors even though we haven’t even drilled exploratory wells yet. There are the incinerators that needlessly kill, tumors spiking next to the Taranto chemical factory, Frankenstein food laying us all low and of course, who could forget that nasty high speed train tunnel from hell in the Val di Susa? That last one is good for decades of health disasters.
Have you got something against a technology? No problem, coat it with some hysteria and float it in the media; it will certainly be picked up and flown for all to fear.
Add to this mix the Western World’s most dysfunctional system for doling out justice: this ruling is the first in what will certainly be a series of three levels of trial. Win, lose or draw everyone can appeal in our flexible halls of justice. And appeal again. In twenty years we may even get to a final judgement. It won’t matter any more, and anybody judged guilty will be sent home for health reasons anyway.
This is a gloomy day for rationality, for reason, for science. It is a kick in the teeth of human accomplishment, of human dignity. It is a sign of a society succumbing to its basest instincts of fear and ignorance. Welcome back to the Dark Ages.