Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
National Post, Feb. 2008 – David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.
Nature News, June 2010 – Scientists who assessed earthquake risk at L’Aquila could be indicted on manslaughter charges.
h/t No-One
In other news Green Company mails bomb parts to economics professor who disagrees with them.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-green-energy-company-threatens-economics-professor-with-package-of-dismantled-bomb-parts/?singlepage=true
And for some strange reason, all Italian seismologists quit en masse tomorrow, leaving the country without any seismological capability whatsoever.
Another unintended consequence.
Why is it that everytime someone dies the government has to pass a law or ban or send it’s army of lawyers after someone? How come the governments only act this way with unpreventable things like earthquakes and traffic accidents? They almost never respond like that to man caused disasters.
Too funny!
I love the irony in that.
A friend of mine used to work at the Pacific Geo-science station in Victoria where they have been torn over decades of concern of whether or not to announce the impending (in geological time) big one. Cry wolf and you might get sued, say nothing and you might get sued. The best estimate of between immediately to sometime over the next 500 years doesn’t inspire much response other than programmes of seismic upgrades.
Suing somebody for not predicting something which is un-predictable? Can you say “ulterior motive”? How about “show trial”.
As to building codes however, I have a whole new appreciation for earthquake mitigation since sitting through that little 5.0 job this week. IMHO, more earthquake preparation is better because this brick-faced frame house I’m in was swaying pretty good.
Who is it that’s in charge of building codes again?
“Scientists who assessed earthquake risk at L’Aquila could be indicted on manslaughter charges.”
Be nice to set a precedent here: Suzuki indicted on fraud charges.
If Suzuki is tearing his hair out, he has a ways to go. He could use a trim anyway.
And the Italians just love to charge people with ridiculous things. Back in 1994, when F1 driver Ayrton Senna was killed in a racing accident, they tried to charge the Williams team principles, the track owners and anyone else they could think of with manslaughter. Pardon me for borrowing the term, but in an interesting juxtaposition the track had attempted to extend the run-off area where Senna was killed and it just may have saved his life. However, the environmental activists in Italy protested the removal of trees and that was the end of that. So I wonder who the actual responsible party was?
The silly season has a ways to go yet….
get used to it…..be sure to wear your brain-bucket (bike helmet).
This is the headline I want to see:
National Post, Feb. 2013 – David Suzuki has begged political leaders for a pardon. For the criminal fraud of ignoring the REAL science behind climate change. While Dr. Fruit fly with cronies where caught enriching themselves by known falsehoods.
“Frequent tremors had been recorded in the surrounding Abruzzo region, culminating in a magnitude-4.0 earthquake on 30 March. ”
I don’t see a problem with sueing EnvironmentCanada for the quake yesterday, and lets sue SuzieDee for ANYTHING!
Gord: It`s getting to the point where it`s surreal watching these enviromentalists re-actions to the pulling down of their idol Gaia – reminds me of another group who like to use bombs as a conversion tool.
Thanks for the h/t Kate – I remembered reading that Suzuki article, probably here, but had completely forgotten about it – how your brain stores all this information and is so quick to pull it all back up and make the connection is beyond me.
The best estimate of between immediately to sometime over the next 500 years doesn’t inspire much response other than programmes of seismic upgrades
Which is pretty-much the exactly correct policy response, John. So long as people are going to live in a seismically-active region, they should build seismic-resistant structures. The advantages of location are obvious; what would the economic cost be of abandoning the lower mainland and Vancouver Island? Would that cost be justified by the reduction in risk of avoiding a 1 in 500 event. Could the same risk reduction be achieved more economically by broadly improving the seismic withstand?