RE: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
Hi Dave, EQ prediction is possible with very low frequency geomagnetic monitoring. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47319.html Is it any surprise that when the earth fractures, or is under stress to the point of fracture, it causes disturbances in its mag-field? -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation. No one has been able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles regularity so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard. I think that it would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series of small quakes occurred when a major event did not follow up? Throwing the dice would likely be as accurate as quake science is currently in this field. Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in California soon. The pattern has been established if you look at the behavior of the ring of fire. Should everyone evacuate the area because of the danger? Who should we incarcerate when it happens? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
That is quite a story Mark. I am not sure why the magnetic field was modulated prior to an EQ but I could readily expect that behavior during one. The measurements your friend performed might have indicated that movement of the earth was slowly occurring over a very large fault distance and I have read somewhere long ago that slow creep of the fault sides happens sometimes. The problem of knowing when these movements precede large quakes seems to be difficult to pin down. Crying wolf too many times is not good for your health! I know that many knowledgeable geologists have been seeking a technique to predict dangerous quakes for many years but they suggest that none has been found. If your friend has discovered a simple trick that works, he should be ready to demonstrate it to these guys. Please do not tell me that EQ geologists behave like physicists when the subject of LENR is brought up. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 11:44 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. Hi Dave, EQ prediction is possible with very low frequency geomagnetic monitoring… http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47319.html Is it any surprise that when the earth fractures, or is under stress to the point of fracture, it causes disturbances in its mag-field? -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation. No one has been able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles regularity so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard. I think that it would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series of small quakes occurred when a major event did not follow up? Throwing the dice would likely be as accurate as quake science is currently in this field. Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in California soon. The pattern has been established if you look at the behavior of the ring of fire. Should everyone evacuate the area because of the danger? Who should we incarcerate when it happens? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
Dave wrote: “If your friend has discovered a simple trick that works, he should be ready to demonstrate it to these guys. Please do not tell me that EQ geologists behave like physicists when the subject of LENR is brought up.” The technique was actually developed by Elizabeth Rauscher and Bill Van Bise… they used to live here in Reno many years ago and my friend and I visited with them several times. Yes, I’m sad to say that at least some EQ geologists behave just like physicists… I think Rauscher and van Bise published over in Japan; I know they at least presented the results at a conference there since she gave me a copy of the paper. They used three identical antennas and multiple locations to get the 3D vectors of the geomag-fld, and felt that it was possible to at least triangulate to the region where the geomagnetic disturbances were occurring. -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. That is quite a story Mark. I am not sure why the magnetic field was modulated prior to an EQ but I could readily expect that behavior during one. The measurements your friend performed might have indicated that movement of the earth was slowly occurring over a very large fault distance and I have read somewhere long ago that slow creep of the fault sides happens sometimes. The problem of knowing when these movements precede large quakes seems to be difficult to pin down. Crying wolf too many times is not good for your health! I know that many knowledgeable geologists have been seeking a technique to predict dangerous quakes for many years but they suggest that none has been found. If your friend has discovered a simple trick that works, he should be ready to demonstrate it to these guys. Please do not tell me that EQ geologists behave like physicists when the subject of LENR is brought up. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 11:44 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. Hi Dave, EQ prediction is possible with very low frequency geomagnetic monitoring… http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47319.html Is it any surprise that when the earth fractures, or is under stress to the point of fracture, it causes disturbances in its mag-field? -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com? ] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation. No one has been able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles regularity so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard. I think that it would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series of small quakes occurred when a major event did not follow up? Throwing the dice would likely be as accurate as quake science is currently in this field. Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in California soon. The pattern has been established if you look at the behavior of the ring of fire. Should everyone evacuate the area because of the danger? Who should we incarcerate when it happens? Dave
[Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
Mischaracterizations of the L'Aquila Lawsuit Verdict http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.cz/2012/10/mischaracterizations-of-laquila-lawsuit.html On March 31, 2009, in L’Aquila, six days before a deadly magnitude 6.3 earthquake killed 308 people, Bernardo De Bernardinis, then deputy chief of Italy’s Civil Protection Department , and six scientists who were members of a scientific advisory body to the Department (the Major Risks Committee) participated in an official meeting and press conference in response to public concerns about short-term earthquake risks. The public concerns were the result of at least two factors: One was the recent occurrence of a number of small earthquakes. A second factor was the prediction of a pending large earthquake issued by Gioacchino Giuliani, who was not a seismologist and worked as a technician at Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. The deputy chief and scientists held a short one-hour meeting and then a press conference, during which they downplayed the possibility of an earthquake. For instance, De Bernardinis went so far as to claim that the recent tremors actually reduced earthquake risks: [T]he scientific community continues to confirm to me that in fact it is a favourable situation, that is to say a continuous discharge of energy. When asked directly by the media if the public should sit back and enjoy a glass of wine rather than worry about earthquakes, De Bernardinis acted as sommelier: Absolutely, absolutely a Montepulciano doc. This seems important. . . . . . . in L’Aquila, the government and its scientists seemed to be sending a different message to the public than the one that was received. Media reports of the Major Risk Committee meeting and the subsequent press conference seem to focus on countering the views offered by Mr. Giuliani, whom they viewed as unscientific and had been battling in preceding months. Thus, one interpretation of the Major Risks Committee’s statements is that they were not specifically about earthquakes at all, but instead were about which individuals the public should view as legitimate and authoritative and which they should not. If officials were expressing a view about authority rather than a careful assessment of actual earthquake risks, this would help to explain their sloppy treatment of uncertainties. The case is likely to be appealed, so the current verdict is not the last word. While the verdict rests on finer points of Italian law and jurisprudence, the issues at play are not accurately characterized as a failure to accurately predict an earthquake, or even more broadly as science vs. anti-science. The public responsibilities of government officials and the scientists that they depend upon are too important to characterize in such cartoonish fashion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
This whole story is an outrage. It is simply dreadful. Are they trying to outlaw science and academic freedom, or are they trying to outlaw mistakes? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
Did you read it? In the process of asserting themselves as the legitimate authorities on local seismological conditions, the seismologists appeared to *minimize* the risk of a major earthquake. One seismologist in an attempt to quell public alarm said the recent cluster of tremors *reduced* the risk of a major earthquake which he knew was unfounded claim. I suspect the government seimsologist were either misinformed about their duties or those duties were not clearly formulated by the government . Unfortunately these scientists are the guinea-pigs for better policy so the sentence should be light. Perhaps the italian equivalent of the minister of the environment should take some of the blame and resign. Harry On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This whole story is an outrage. It is simply dreadful. Are they trying to outlaw science and academic freedom, or are they trying to outlaw mistakes? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:59:53 -0400: Hi, [snip] Media reports of the Major Risk Committee meeting and the subsequent press conference seem to focus on countering the views offered by Mr. Giuliani, whom they viewed as unscientific and had been battling in preceding months. ...since it appears Giuliani was correct, I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to ask how he managed to make such a prediction? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
Journalist around the world are comparing those lazy professors to real scientists persecuted in the past. Galileo is the most named. I just remind that Galileo used his intelligence to make *correct* predictions that went against the established Truth , that eventually led him to be sentenced for life. The ones we are talking about here *denied* that there was an increased chance of a strong earthquake even if earth tremors in the area were intensifying their frequency. It seems they did a very poor job in investigating further and also pointing the inadequate level of safety of building especially public ones. It is probable that there have been pressures to play down actual risk by the government of that time. The full document that explains the sentence has not been released to the public, but it looks that this particular vicissitude is the exact opposite of the one of Galileo. mic 2012/10/29 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Did you read it? In the process of asserting themselves as the legitimate authorities on local seismological conditions, the seismologists appeared to *minimize* the risk of a major earthquake. One seismologist in an attempt to quell public alarm said the recent cluster of tremors *reduced* the risk of a major earthquake which he knew was unfounded claim. I suspect the government seimsologist were either misinformed about their duties or those duties were not clearly formulated by the government . Unfortunately these scientists are the guinea-pigs for better policy so the sentence should be light. Perhaps the italian equivalent of the minister of the environment should take some of the blame and resign. Harry On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This whole story is an outrage. It is simply dreadful. Are they trying to outlaw science and academic freedom, or are they trying to outlaw mistakes? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation. No one has been able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles regularity so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard. I think that it would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series of small quakes occurred when a major event did not follow up? Throwing the dice would likely be as accurate as quake science is currently in this field. Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in California soon. The pattern has been established if you look at the behavior of the ring of fire. Should everyone evacuate the area because of the danger? Who should we incarcerate when it happens? Dave -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. Journalist around the world are comparing those lazy professors to real scientists persecuted in the past. Galileo is the most named. I just remind that Galileo used his intelligence to make *correct* predictions that went against the established Truth , that eventually led him to be sentenced for life. The ones we are talking about here *denied* that there was an increased chance of a strong earthquake even if earth tremors in the area were intensifying their frequency. It seems they did a very poor job in investigating further and also pointing the inadequate level of safety of building especially public ones. It is probable that there have been pressures to play down actual risk by the government of that time. The full document that explains the sentence has not been released to the public, but it looks that this particular vicissitude is the exact opposite of the one of Galileo. mic 2012/10/29 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Did you read it? In the process of asserting themselves as the legitimate authorities on local seismological conditions, the seismologists appeared to *minimize* the risk of a major earthquake. One seismologist in an attempt to quell public alarm said the recent cluster of tremors *reduced* the risk of a major earthquake which he knew was unfounded claim. I suspect the government seimsologist were either misinformed about their duties or those duties were not clearly formulated by the government . Unfortunately these scientists are the guinea-pigs for better policy so the sentence should be light. Perhaps the italian equivalent of the minister of the environment should take some of the blame and resign. Harry On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This whole story is an outrage. It is simply dreadful. Are they trying to outlaw science and academic freedom, or are they trying to outlaw mistakes? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.
The matter is much simpler than could appear. It's only a simple question. More than 300 people died, because buildings collapsed. Did someone that was regarded as competent and with an official role say that in l'Aquila there was no danger because of possible earthquakes? In Japan an earthquake of that strength would have caused almost no harm, forget about death. Science is non issue here, take the word science out of the context: there was only sloppiness and probably bad politics. If houses and buildings were properly built casualties would have been close to 0. Those are not poor scientists, they were and still are, well (tax) paid officials and experts. Probably they were just afraid to loose their jobs if they went on denouncing the real risks. Probably a greater level of moral of responsibility comes from politics, if it is so they should have explained to the court how they were coerced to down play the danger. Seems they did not or were not able to do so, maybe because the court was constituted by a bunch of idiotic magistrates that believe that earthquakes can be predicted! It takes some times even months to see the full written sentence, then anyone should find there the finest legal details about the court ruling. In any case there is nothing to worry, they have the chance to shed some light and have a favorable ruling in the appeal trial. mic p.s. If there is any California official saying that there is no possible danger related to earthquakes, well you should request him resigning and help him to get mental care . 2012/10/29 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation. No one has been able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles regularity so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard. I think that it would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series of small quakes occurred when a major event did not follow up? Throwing the dice would likely be as accurate as quake science is currently in this field. Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in California soon. The pattern has been established if you look at the behavior of the ring of fire. Should everyone evacuate the area because of the danger? Who should we incarcerate when it happens? Dave -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists. Journalist around the world are comparing those lazy professors to real scientists persecuted in the past. Galileo is the most named. I just remind that Galileo used his intelligence to make *correct* predictions that went against the established Truth , that eventually led him to be sentenced for life. The ones we are talking about here *denied* that there was an increased chance of a strong earthquake even if earth tremors in the area were intensifying their frequency. It seems they did a very poor job in investigating further and also pointing the inadequate level of safety of building especially public ones. It is probable that there have been pressures to play down actual risk by the government of that time. The full document that explains the sentence has not been released to the public, but it looks that this particular vicissitude is the exact opposite of the one of Galileo. mic 2012/10/29 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Did you read it? In the process of asserting themselves as the legitimate authorities on local seismological conditions, the seismologists appeared to *minimize* the risk of a major earthquake. One seismologist in an attempt to quell public alarm said the recent cluster of tremors *reduced* the risk of a major earthquake which he knew was unfounded claim. I suspect the government seimsologist were either misinformed about their duties or those duties were not clearly formulated by the government . Unfortunately these scientists are the guinea-pigs for better policy so the sentence should be light. Perhaps the italian equivalent of the minister of the environment should take some of the blame and resign. Harry On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This whole story is an outrage. It is simply dreadful. Are they trying to outlaw science and academic freedom, or are they trying to outlaw mistakes? - Jed
