As for the earthquake business, I think it's time to tell the other side of the story because as usual the media version is a simplified one that doesn't tell the whole picture. It makes it sound like it's about convicting scientists for not being able to predict earthquakes but that is simply not true.
The trial was all about negligence and communication failure.
Negligence: The prosecutor claimed that there were plenty of indications towards an earthquake in the near future (although a precise date, time and location can never be predicted) and that the reason why the accused failed to issue a warning was because of negligence - they didn't check the data properly.
Analyses made after the earthquake showed that the seismic activity was increased in the months prior to the earthquake and that it didn't follow the normal pattern. The earthquake was not a big surprise that came from nowhere and if it wasn't for negligence, the prosecutor claimed, the accused would have been able to see that there was an elevated risk.
Communication failure: The accused held a press conference to reassure the public that there was no danger of an earthquake
as far as they could tell. The press conference itself meant that the communication from the scientists was delivered straight to the media without the filters and interpretations that usually would process their communications.
For instance, if the scientist says that "we don't see any elevated risk for an earthquake in the near future", the unfiltered version would sound to the general public like "there won't be an earthquake", while if there had been a filter the message that reached the public might have sounded more like "we don't know if there's going to be an earthquake".
Also, the message being delivered straight from the scientists at the press conference meant that the public placed high trust in the message they recieved (which, again, wasn't necessarily the same message as the scientists intended to communicate).
I haven't read all 700 pages of the sentence so I can't say if I think the sentence is correct in this case, all I'm saying is:
1. The trial wasn't "against science".
2. Don't trust everything you read in the newspapers.
Here's a website where the accused tell their story and it also have the sentence and other documents that gives a bit of insight in the prosecutor's and judge's side:
http://processoaquila.wordpress.com/