It's good to see that Keith has started posting in summaries, but
unfortunately the summaries are as misleading as the long versions. ;-)
Keith Hudson wrote:
> So here's a short summary of my views of the Civil Service:
>
> The Civil Service in England (and undoubedly in all nation-states, too)
I wouldn't be so sure about the "undoubtedly". The history of the United
*Kingdom* is rather unique as the biggest colonist in history and still a
monarchy with "democracy" only painted over (your friend Maggie T. called
it "elected dictatorship").
Your too-broad sweeping generalization onto "all nation-states" is also
the main reason why your contempt against nation-states per se is
inappropriate (not to say misguided).
> was
> started as a self-conscious top-down organisation and has remained so ever
> since, meanwhile "capturing" the so-called democratic process of politics.
> Essentially, even though it is an intellectual body rather than something
> established by force -- as almost all other governing bodies have been
> throughout history -- it suffers from not receiving sufficient feedback
> from the masses. These days, when economic life is so much more complex
> than ever before, hierarchical structures can't cope with the flow of
> information that's necessary for optimal governance. The typical civil
> services of nation-states are patently failing (as also mass membership of
> political parties) and, as a consequence, we are already seeing the
> emergence of powerful specialised pressure groups which are seeking to
> influence political decision-making from the bottom upwards, aided by the
> media and other devices (opinion polls, etc).
Come on, Keith. If there is any hierarchical undemocratic top-down
organization, it is the modern private corporation.
If you claim that "specialised pressure groups" are organized bottom-up,
you don't know modern NGOs. I know them from inside and must say they
have become like corporations -- arrogant apparatchiks at the top who
screw the basis' needs in pursuit of their own career and profits.
Media and opinion polls? Same game.
Now to your "Summary" (quotations, actually) on Climate Change:
> <<<
> There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate
> changes and what causes them. Our primary conclusion is that despite some
> knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are in no
> position to attribute confidently past climate change to carbon dioxide or
> forecast what the climate will be in the future.
> >>>
> Richard Lindzen, Prof of Meteorology, MIT, National Academy of Science
> Presidential Advisory Weather Panel writing in the Wall Street Journal
Comparisons with the tobacco industry's well-paid "consensus-breakers"
or the medieval Church's flat Earth come to mind...
> <<<
> Global warming, as presently presented, is a myth. People should be working
> on how to adapt to climate change, not stop the unstoppable. When people
> die of epidemics and hunger, why do we fear a little warmth?
> >>>
> Philip Stott, Prof of Biogeography, London University, expert on rainforests
The *average* warming isn't the point. The big problem is the CO2-induced
*destabilization* of the climate, i.e. the strong increase in *extremes* of
temperature, moisture, windspeeds etc., and in the *frequency* of
alternations of climate parameters. Stott's last phrase above is the
outmost of silliness (or hypocrisy). Epidemics and hunger are a *result*
of climate extremes such as floods, destroyed crops, even cold waves (e.g.
in Mongolia) etc. that are already causing damages in the billions.
Last Friday, a mini-tornado in Strasbourg France killed 11 people (a strong
tree fell on a tent). Have you ever heard of tornadoes in France?? These
people weren't killed by "a little warmth", but by a destabilized climate.
5 km from where I'm sitting, 200,000 cubic metres of rocks rushed down
from a mountain last Saturday (for the first time in thousands of years
in that place). It wasn't due to "a little warmth" either, but due to
months of changes between 30�C days and cold days of nonstop rain (more
rain in 2 days than usually in the whole month of June).
Chris
