Bazal
Post Whore
- Messages
- 99,802
I reckon you could use a little thalidomideHopefully they don't give me thalidomide for my morning sickness.
I reckon you could use a little thalidomideHopefully they don't give me thalidomide for my morning sickness.
Exactly those types. There are now research jobs in my industry that exclude anyone with a PhD, so useless have they turned out to be.you mean the life long PHD students ?
I worked with a few at ANU on a commercial venture they were working on and that was about 20 years ago, and to this day there venture has never been commercialized, but hey, they are still being paid, albeit poorly, to carry out research
Well thalidomide is however used in the treatment of skin cancer now, just not for pregnant chicks.Hopefully they don't give me thalidomide for my morning sickness.
cheers HJ
I'm not arguing the point or saying you are wrong, I didn't put any contra argument forward. Its just that if you dont provide a source of reference then its just an opinion and you can leave yourself open but we have had this conversation prior.
After following Fitsimmons for the last few months he has convinced me that no amount of hazard reduction would have prevented the current fires as we are in a pretty bad drought, and he is well qualified to make that claim.
As for climate change, well that's a whole other argument.
Have you been affected by the fires up your way ? I have friends in Kurrajong who nearly lost their house but they are OK, for now at least.
Even if the majority of scientists do agree (I'm sure they do), most of them would be the garbage scientists not good enough for a salaried job in industry.
Since Bob Carr closed off the fire trails to protected parks the fuel load has been building up. Even in normal drought years this hasn’t resulted in a catastrophe because we’ve had enough water to balance the fuel loads.
Are you referring to the same Bob Carr who was NSW Premier from 1995-2005 ? How can it still be his fault ? That was 6 premiers ago !
I never said that Bob Carr didn't close the fire trails or whatever. I was simply pointing out that there has been plenty of opportunity to repeal, amend these orders IF they have been shown to be counterproductive. The mere fact that they have stayed closed (have they?) suggests that it's not been a huge problem. Otherwise two labor governments and 4 liberal governments since, would have done something about it.Well there is such a thing as cause and effect. Why couldn't Carr have started a process or series of processes that eventually lead to issues?
I don't necessarily agree, but it's silly to just say "well that was six premiers ago so it's not true"
I never said that Bob Carr didn't close the fire trails or whatever. I was simply pointing out that there has been plenty of opportunity to repeal, amend these orders IF they have been shown to be counterproductive. The mere fact that they have stayed closed (have they?) suggests that it's not been a huge problem. Otherwise two labor governments and 4 liberal governments since, would have done something about it.
But if person A puts in place a process that's wrong, however it isn't demonstrated to be wrong until person F is charge, how can the people in between be held accountable?
I'm confused about the tangent that this has gone. This is not about anything other than if the closing of fire trails occurred in the nineties / naughties, then surely it could have been repealed IF it is indeed as problematic as HJ suggests.
If it is problematic and compounds hazard reduction issues, then each and every premier since the merkin who introduced it are just as culpable.
If it took this long to be evident that it was harmful then the people in between aren't to blame. For that matter neither is Bob Carr. Nobody can know the unintended consequences of any policy change. Not even those omniscient lords of ethics known as scientists.I'm confused about the tangent that this has gone. This is not about anything other than if the closing of fire trails occurred in the nineties / naughties, then surely it could have been repealed IF it is indeed as problematic as HJ suggests.
If it is problematic and compounds hazard reduction issues, then each and every premier since the merkin who introduced it are just as culpable.
Well the premise of the accusation by HJ was that the problem "started with" Bob Carr, which clearly makes a conclusion that it's been a problem since then and still is.If it took this long to be evident that it was harmful then the people in between aren't to blame. For that matter neither is Bob Carr. Nobody can know the unintended consequences of any policy change. Not even those omniscient lords of ethics known as scientists.