Chris,
I note the smiley at the end of your message, which I take to mean that you
are only half serious, but only half. I feel I must come to Keith's
defence. Whether he says it with brevity or length, whatever he says he
says with both passion and intellect. He has consistently been one of the
most challenging people on this or any other list. I rarely agree with him,
but I have an enormous respect for the mind behind those postings.
Ed Weick
> 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
>
>
