Scientist Forced To Remove Earthquake Prediction

Hugh Pickens writes to mention that Italian scientist Giampaolo Giuliani, a researcher at the National Physical Laboratory of Gran Sasso, recently gave warning about an earthquake that was to happen on March 29th of this year near L'Aquilla. Based on radon gas emissions and a series of observed tremors he tried to convince residents to evacuate, drawing much criticism from the city's mayor and others. Giuliani was forced to take down warnings he had posted on the internet. The researcher had said that a 'disastrous' earthquake would strike on March 29, but when it didn't, Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, last week officially denounced Giuliani in court for false alarm. 'These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news,' Bertalaso was quoted as saying. 'Everyone knows that you can't predict earthquakes.' Giuliani, it turns out, was partially right. A much smaller seismic shift struck on the day he said it would, with the truly disastrous one arriving just one week later. 'Someone owes me an apology,' said Giuliani, who is also a resident of L'Aquila. 'The situation here is dramatic. I am devastated, but also angry.'"

Comments

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

sucks to be in italy! glad i'm several hundred km north of you!

suckers!

Mistake in repoting the earthquake correctly.

[clam666]

He has a higher accuracy rates than psychics AND the Vatican, yet none of them were blamed for not having reported it.

That's what you get for putting your neck out. If he had reported "due to global warming, an earthquake is coming...", then he would currently be regarded as an international hero.

Re:Mistake in repoting the earthquake correctly.

[clam666]

When does one cross the line from "flamebait" to "yes, that is an accurate portayal of what the current governmental policies or the media would report as real.".

You know it's true. C'mon. Seriously. We both know that anything currently announced as "due to global warming" gets far more press coverage and front row reporting than any old boring technical or scientific reasoning.

For example. Imagine its November, 1999. Two articles are written one says "Due to poor management, sloppy software design processes, lack of business requirements, many software packages may experience problems". The other reads "Due to Y2K, computers will fail all over and destroy civilization. Only $1.2 trillion will possibly keep it at bay."

Which one due you think will be the focus of government and media trumpeting?

Of course Y2K and global warming aren't exactly the same thing. Y2K had actual numbers and fixes and proveable test conditions, whereas global warming is...well...what it is.

The end result will pretty much be the same I guess.

Now THIS could be considered flame bait. Please MOD is accodingly. Preferably -10 or below.

Heck of a Job, Guido! -

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody stick this chucklefuck in a room with Bobby 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' Volcanologists' Jindal. These two tools were clearly made for each other.

Re:Bad Science

[gardyloo]

You cannot evacuate cities for long periods just to find out that it was a false alarm.

Perhaps not, but tell that to people who lost loved ones in the earthquake.

Re:earth sciences, who needs them?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is wasteful, how is the 140 million going to stimulate the economy, this just in... the stimulus bill was not designed to stimulate the economy just stimulate people's dependence on the government.

Re:earth sciences, who needs them?

[Obfuscant]

You decide if he was suggesting that monitoring volcanoes is "wasteful spending"

In an ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL, it is wasteful. In a budget allocation bill to a scientific agency that has peer-reviewed the proposal and decided the value is worth the cost, it isn't. Yes, there is a difference. The former is just one more example of pork in an allegedly pork-free bill. The latter is scientifically reviewed and scientifically based.

"While some of the projects in the bill make sense,..." "IN THE BILL".

No, not all "spending" is economic stimulus. Not even Democrats truly believe this. Why else would they still be bashing Bush for the money spent on the Iraq war? Hey, it's STIMULUS, unless a Republican does it, then it's a deficit buster!

Re:earth sciences, who needs them?

[Red Flayer]

B-b-b-b-but that contradicts what Rush, Hannity, et al told me he said!

It can't be the truth, it makes it look like Jindal said something purely as a demagogue, and he's not a demogogue, he's a real[1] American.

Surely you're wrong, and you're misquoting him, you libtard!

[1] By real, I mean I have to pretend I like the fact that he pulled himself up by his bootstraps to elected office, which is good because he's not taking any jobs from REAL Merkins who work in factories, just from politicians, who as we know exist to live off the fat of the hard-working Merkins.

/sarcasm

I wonder why all the rednecks aren't having major issues from cognitive dissonance due to the wonderboy of the "New Republican" Party being an immigrant (or the son of one, I don't know where he was born)?

Re:earth sciences, who needs them?

[getnate]

This is the broken window fallacy. Those jobs don't create wealth. Instead no wealth is generated and in some cases is lost. The money going to those jobs should have been spend on something that would generate more wealth than they cost. That is stimulus.

false alarm your butt

[unity100]

le idiot. 100.000 people homeless now, and there are only 2000 tents. you deserve a kick in the face.

Re:earth sciences, who needs them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! You're right!

I'm going to go and max out all my credit cards, because ALL spending is stimuls! Nothing bad can ever result from that, right?

Aside from your comment being just plain wrong, that was supposed to be an emergency bill that had to be passed RIGHT NOW!! Or else the economy would NEVER recover!!!!! Please explain for the volcano monitoring was immediaely essential to "stimulating" the economy.

Also, could you please explain why Obama, Frank, et al, want to cut defense spending (in real dollars, not just reducing the amount of increase)? Shouldn't we be be drastically increasing defense spending?

And, please tell me how preserving the habitat of a mouse near San Francisco stimulates the economy? Or how (in the original House version) a few million dollars on condoms is essential to the economy? Especially when said condoms are now being purchased from China.

thanks,
john

Re:cry wolf

[mr i want to go home]

Let's just say this: you have no idea.