Page 323 of 323 < 1 2 ... 321 322 323
Topic Options
#1135028 - 23/10/2012 11:24 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Anthony Violi]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Some response from the global geological community:
Dr David Rothery, Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, Open University, said:

“I am glad that those found guilty will appeal. Earthquakes are inherently unpredictable, and prior to the magnitude 6.3 l'Aquila quake a 'best estimate' was given, which was that the current low level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger earthquake. That turns out to have been wrong, but most of the time it would probably have been right.
Maybe the message came across rather too complacently, but six years in jail for at worse poor communication skills seems to me totally disproportionate.

“If civil protection is to be effective, rather than having jail sentences hanging over them and having to battle the legal system, the Italian seismic experts should be spending time studying and advising on earthquakes.

“I am far less concerned about the scientists' 'failure' to communicate the risks clearly enough, than I am about the likelihood that building codes for seismic resilience may have been flouted, with the result that buildings that should have withstood the shaking collapsed.”


Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, UCL, said:

“This is an extremely alarming verdict. If this sets a precedent then national governments will find it impossible to persuade any scientist to sit on a natural hazard risk evaluation panel. In the longer term, then, this decision will cost lives not save them.

“We don't have the ability to predict earthquakes, but what national governments need to so is spend time and money ensuring that the buildings in areas of potential earthquake risk are able to withstand expected earthquakes.”


Professor Bruce Malamud, King's College London said:

"The scientists involved in the trial conveyed to the public the uncertainty and small probability of an earthquake occurring in L'Aquila based on accepted knowledge we as a community have accumulated over many years. The words 'improbable' and 'unlikely to occur' are often unfortunate translations from scientists of these small probabilities, as they convey to some in the public that a large magnitude event will never occur, when the scientists are trying to convey that there IS a possibility, just small and finite. But, that any year, there is a given chance of an earthquake of a given society or larger occurring. It would certainly benefit society if instead of prosecuting individual scientists for a perceived failure to communicate, it rather works on educating the average citizen, through the schools and examples, as to what is meant by uncertainty and low probability."


Professor David Spiegelhalter, University of Cambridge, said

"This bizarre verdict will chill anyone who gives scientific advice, and I hope they are freed on appeal. The lesson for me is that scientific advisors must try and retain control over how their work is communicated, and are properly trained to engage with the public."


Sandy Steacy, Professor of Earthquake Physics, University of Ulster, said

"If it stands, this verdict will have a chilling effect on earthquake science in Italy and throughout Europe. For instance, who would now be willing to serve on an earthquake hazard evaluation panel when getting it wrong could mean a conviction for manslaughter?

And what will be the effect on the "impact" agenda? Here in the UK scientists are being challenged to ensure that their research has influence outside academia; this case suggests that such engagement can be very dangerous."


Dr Roger Musson, British Geological Survey, said:

“This is a very sad business indeed, these are people I know, who were doing their best to give an accurate account of large earthquakes. It seems to be wrong that they should be prosecuted for offering scientific advice to the best of their ability”

It will certainly make scientists less free in speaking out where perhaps their expertise are really needed”

It’s not about them failing to predict earthquakes, it’s not about anything those 6 scientists said at the forum which they were asked to give their opinion, what those 6 scientists said was correct and any seismologists would support it”


Richard Walters of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences said:

‘I am very saddened to hear about the verdict. The issue here is about miscommunication of science, and we should not be putting responsible scientists who gave measured, scientifically accurate information in prison. This sets a very dangerous precedent and I fear it will discourage other scientists from offering their advice on natural hazards and trying to help society in this way.

‘I have read the translated minutes of the meeting of the Grand Commission of High Risks on the 31st March, and the scientific information that was conveyed within that meeting was not inexact, incomplete or contradictory. It was clear, measured and scientifically accurate.

‘The prosecution have not distinguished between the different defendant's actions or words. To be prosecuted for other people's miscommunication of your scientific advice is a travesty.’


Dr John Elliott of Oxford University’s Department of Earth Sciences said:

‘This verdict is a sad end to a tragic series of events in L'Aquila. Earthquakes cannot be predicted, and these scientists should not even have been on trial accused of providing incomplete information, because it is unfair to have expected them to have provided an exact and complete warning of an earthquake in the first place - this is something which is not yet credibly possible for earthquake science.

‘This potentially sets back scientists' desire and ability to engage openly with the public and authorities on the risks faced by society from natural hazards, particularly those involving seismic activity.’

Dr David Rothery, Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, Open University, said:

“I hope they will appeal. Earthquakes are inherently unpredictable. The best estimate at the time was that the low level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger quake, but there are no certainties in this game.”


Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of Medical Physics, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, said:

“Assuming that negligence and malpractice are not factors here then the prosecution, and now sentences, of the Italian seismologists comes as a considerable surprise. In seismology, as with many other branches of the pure and applied sciences, opinions are derived from observables and the application of experience and training. It is never the case that predictions are completely without uncertainty and any scientist will make this clear as well as an estimation of how accurate such predictions are.

“If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled. It is worth pointing out that many of the valuable contributions made by scientists such as penicillin, radiobiology etc have stemmed from the enquiring mind rather than absolute certainty of success.”

#1135038 - 23/10/2012 11:51 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: __PG__]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3906
Originally Posted By: __PG__
Why blame corrupt politicians and lax building codes when you can send a scientist to jail instead?

Burn the witch!

I reckon politicians are a different kettle of fish altogether. They are entrusted to protect our best interests - and sometimes politics gets in the way big time. Not trying to start any wars: But the polies decission not to allow clearing around property and regular backburning contributed significantly to the loss of property (and life) in the Victorian bush fire tragedy. Or the shortsightedness of re-zoning and allowing residential property to be built on known flood plains (i.e. Brisbane south) is simply asking for a tragedy to happen.

I know that there are many opinions between scientists - which is as it should be. But politicians ignoring historical facts / precedent is in cases such as above verges on the criminal. And the fact that the leftoid media cheersquad has failed to bring these issues out to open and / or to prosecute where there has been a failure of trust, just compounds the issue...
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

#1135083 - 23/10/2012 14:39 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Arnost]
__PG__ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 08/02/2010
Posts: 706
Old Nature article makes an interesting case.

#1135109 - 23/10/2012 15:46 Re: Interesting news articles about AGW [Re: Simmosturf]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
See you all later I'm taking a break from here, it is no use being on here anymore, the one person has wrecked it for all.
It was a pleasant place to come once
Thanks to all the nice folk here.
Cheers and blessing to you all.
I may come back some time, not sure.

Page 323 of 323 < 1 2 ... 321 322 323

Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
2 registered (Stale fish, Galaxyman), 27 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
AussiePride_oioi, Bree, celina amina, Squaremeaters, Stazza_Brendan
Forum Stats
29273 Members
32 Forums
23612 Topics
1451573 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image