Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser
Until you understand IT IS NOT ABOUT PREDICTIONS OR LACK OF, this will go nowhere.
|
One can't even claim there are some nuances in the judgement, the inconsistencies in the judgment are quite obvious.
If you want to be sheep like and blindly accept the standard line that's your prerogative, but don't impose it on others.
Your quotes only reinforce the inconsistencies.
For example...
Quote:
The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila." Part of that risk assessment, he says, should have included the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre. "They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors," he says, "and they did not."
|
Part of the local and international furore over of the decision is on the very point of risk assessment. When does a seismologist's responsibilities include risk assessment of "the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre"?
Why have the urban planners and engineers that shoulder this process not been prosecuted as well?
Explain to me the relationship between public policy and seismology?
Quote:
It does not reinforce that at all. The following suggests investigations are continuing
L'Aquila's chief prosecutor has opened a probe into possible criminal blame for the collapses.
|
That was back in 2009.
This is from livescience.com Oct 22 2012
Quote:
No charges have been brought in L'Aquila regarding building codes or standards.)
|
Quote:
The prosecutors cited a scientific opinion that the low-level tremors ahead of the 6 April quake were typical of the seismic activity preceding major convulsions, but the defendants had classified them as a "normal geological phenomenon".[9] They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring" and Judge Marco Billi gave them a six-year jail sentence on 22 October 2012,[7] reasoning that they had provided "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken"
|
This is going around in circles.
In case you missed it the response is to this.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...6&postcount=45
Here the issue is on "risk communication" as opposed to "risk assessment".
If the scientists or civil defense individual poorly communicated the information on Giuliani's work resulting in misinterpretation then they deserve a kick up the backside or at worse being fired but definitely not a jail sentence.
Quote:
If the engineers/builders had been investigated first, then it would be them to wrongly claim they are the scapegoats.
The ongoing investigation may even find others in the government may have some blame apportioned to them. Time will tell.
|
This is an argument based on a logical fallacy "argumentum ad ignoratiam" or appeal to ignorance. Unless you show me your crystal ball that indicates this I refuse to believe it.
Steven