Poirot raises a good point.

The Judgement and sentence of the scientists is a vast overreach by the court, and is unlikely to stand. However, it does raise the question as to what responsibility do scientists take for their findings, and what level of censure should they face. As what the scientists told the community is not dealt with in much detail, this thread can only deal in generalities.

The questions should be:
What is the ability to form an accurate forecast,
What are the consequences of an error,
What information as to the accuracy and consequences were given to the people.

Given that the area has been levelled by earthquakes 3 times in 800 years, and that many buildings were not earthquake proofed, and likely to cause fatalities, the assumption would be that a catastrophe was unlikely but possible.

If this was close to the advice that was given, then no censure is warranted, however, if the advice gave the people an all clear, then some professional consequences should follow.

The risk is that if scientists give a clear and honest assessments, based on recognised evidence, any risk of prosecution will simply result in assessments in the future not being given or being couched in legal verbiage as to make them nearly worthless.

Is it working?? Can I upload??

Been having bloody hopeless problems with the whole sh!tbag.... er, I mean; system, this morning.

.

A terribly STUPID decision in Italy….. if it is as it is purported to be in the media.

We can never know the exact circumstances, but it is hard to see how this decision could ever be justified.

Some commentators think that it is a disingenuous decision by a low-level court, with the full knowledge that it will be overturned upon appeal.

It certainly seems like this could be true….. in which case that particular judge should end up behind bars for attempting to pervert the course of justice!

I totally agree Philip S.

Rudd should be brought to account for what would have to be the dumbest political move in the history of this country in opening up the onshore asylum seeker debacle again.

But there is one huge difference between this and the Italian decision – Rudd made what was OBVIOUSLY an absolutely STUPID decision to water down border protection laws, while the Italian scientists did NOTHING WRONG at all.

Totally absurd !
If I was a meteorologist in Italy's weather service I would resign immeadiatly.
The case against them would be stronger because their systems have
more certainty than seismology.

I notice that the boss of those convicted has resigned in protest.
How about a judge who releases someone on bail and they go out and kill someone ?
Thousands of similar liabilities exist, a lawyers' paradise.
My goodness, if I was a contributing author to the IPCC I would be in a total funk !

The whole thing goes from insanity to the madhouse.

Funny you should say that Bazz.

Only this year NZ meteorologists have been subject to legal action on these issues - and even talk by some of the possibility of extending the process to Australia's BOM.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/o7/news-legal-action-against-agw/

How to shut up scientists 101?

How about Dubya, Blair and Howard who lied their countries into a destructive, bloody and unnecessary war? War criminals?

How about people who could live elsewhere but decide to build on a flood plain, in an earthquake zone or ln a fire prone area? Guilty of putting their families in danger?