Hi Christoph,
At 14:21 09/07/01 +0200, Christoph Reuss wrote:
>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)
(CR)
>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).
(CR)
>Come on, Keith. If there is any hierarchical undemocratic top-down
>organization, it is the modern private corporation.
Come on, Christoph. How many layers are there in the typical civil service
department? About 30 in the English CS. How many layers in the typical
corporation? No more than 10 in the very largest I suggest.
Of course, there must be hierarchy in a corporation because strategic
decisions must be taken swiftly quite often. But, for normal everyday
operations (and I've worked in both multinationals and in government),
there's far more lateral communication in the corporation. Besides, there
is one flow of information that is absolutely vital at all times in a
coporation -- that is from the bottom (customer) to the top. This flow
hardly happens in government service. The ordinary member of the public
hasn't got a snowflake in hell's chance of making a complaint to anybody of
importance in the civil services.
(On the other hand, when I started my music business, Handlo Music, and
Barclays Bank refused to let me have merchant services status [they were
frightened of Internet-based businesses four years ago], I wrote to the
Chief executive, Martin Taylor. I not only received a hand-written reply,
by also a fulsome letter of apology from the Finance Director. Later that
month, there was a complete change of policy by Barclays Bank towards small
dotcom businesses [followed by a change of policy by all the remaining
major banks in England].)
(CR)
>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.
I agree. Once they reach a certain age they fossilise and become
hierarchies in the same way and starts losing touch with the people.
Fortunately, when that happens another pressure group usually forms in the
vacuum and resumes the vital link with the public.
(CR)
>Media and opinion polls? Same game.
Don't understand you here.
(CR)
>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).
You can't quote isolated examples -- not yet, anyway, until the overall
picture is much better known than now.
It depends on where you look at the world. In Alaska, the Columbia glacier
is retreating. But Greenland has been getting colder. The edge of the
Antarctic Peninsula is retreating, but temperatures at the South Pole have
plunged to 108� F, the lowest for 40 years.
Another quote:
<<<<
Contrary to conventional wisdom and the predictions of cimputer models, the
Earth's climate has not warmed appreciable in the last two decades --
probably not since about 1940. The evidence (from tree rings around the
world) is abundant.
>>>>
Fred Singer, President of the Science and environmental Policy Foundation.
There are two important, unknowns in the study of climate hitherto. One is
the reflectivity of different cloud formations; the other is the absorption
of CO2 by surface marine organisms. They are hugely important and these
have yet to be studied comprehensively. Until then, computer simulations
of future climate are futile.
Keith H
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
