|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
Then prosecute the non scientist, if he's the
one responsible for
garbling the message
I cannot be sure about who was
responsible for the garbling of the message. The court found that it
was the scientists. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Now, if
there was evidence of deliberate lying,
because the government wanted to
avoid
panic and whatever, that's a different story
If you
actually read the articles (google Translate works fine in this case) you will
see that they have tape recordings of the scientists agreeing with the officials
to manipulate the message. I am not capable of finding enough information to
say how damning those tapes are. I assume they would be available in Italian
from the court.
There seems to be clear evidence that they knew that this
was an extremely high risk area, that there were dangerous buildings and despite
that they still said that this is "low risk" (can't verify the exact Italian
words used).
Or should people living
there think about that
report and make their
own plan, whether moving away now or forming
a plan of
escape while others are staying put
because the guy on the TV said it's
safe?
The people had made their own plan; their own decision.
Many of them were sleeping in their cars to avoid an earthquake they believed
would happen soon. These scientists were brought in specifically to alter that
situation. The clearly collaborated in an attempt to make it seem that things
were safer than they were in fact. Whether they were actually negligent in
doing that is another question. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Man Claiming Facebook Ownership Arrested on Fraud Charges
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Quote from the article:
Dressing up a fraud as a lawsuit does not immunize you from prosecution.
I sure wish that had been explained to Mr. Darl McBride!
RAS
Scientist Claiming Situation Not Dangerous Convicted on Fraud Charges
Dressing up a technical uncertainty situation as a physical safe situation
and technical fraud as competance does not immunize you from prosecution.
What those scientist did was to assure people that a very dangerous situation
was completely safe. This self serving poop was full swallowed and believed by a
large number of individuals only because of their reputation and scientific
position. After all they are scientist and know of what they say when they
declared the situation fully safe.
If this were an isolated incident it would be one thing but then we have the
very same action being by scientist advocating global warming. That does not
mean global warming but the action of the scientist if performed in a financial
field would have result in a very long vacation in a place the sun don't shine.
Bravo to Italy for standing up to these lying scam artists.
Scientific inquiry and the publication of scientific results is one thing but
the use of science for politiccal reasons has gone too far.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 27 2012 @ 09:02 PM EDT |
Capsule summary, from what I understand:
1. Amateur "scientist" claims earthquake is imminent in area
that is always prone to earthquakes, using completely
invalid methods.
2. Public and government get upset
3. Real scientists (those convicted in this case) state
correctly that the minor tremors observed do not mean that
the risk of an earthquake is any higher than usual
("situation is normal"). This does *not* mean that there is
no risk of an earthquake, only that there is no reputable
scientific evidence to suggest that the risk is any higher
than usual.
4. Earthquake occurs, people die, and the scientists are
blamed for misleading the public.
At least this is what I have been able to piece together as
a non-Italian reader.
Does anyone know of anything that doesn't fit above summary?
I don't want to defend these guys if they were self-serving,
dishonest, or incompetent, but it really looks to me like
the public wanted more certainty than could be provided, and
now these guys are getting blamed because no one wanted
there to be any nuances.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
