Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

That rather sums up the head in the sand "Climate Change doesn't
exist" mentality of some of the older generations...

And where, exactly, has Bill said that?

SteveT

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Look, the other day I was in M & S at York, in the café. There were
huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all about how they
recycle
their bags and so forth. We had a simple meal for two (just sandwiches
and a
bun) and at the end we had a tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers. In
other words, they pay lip service but that's all, because they know that
if
they wrap things less well people will eat elsewhere.

Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using china
crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly all
throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some bean-
counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has had
a
useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes.

They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour?

--
Max Demian

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
That rather sums up the head in the sand "Climate Change doesn't
exist" mentality of some of the older generations...

And where, exactly, has Bill said that?

SteveT

quote (My emphasis)
"We are all entitled to discuss this, because the way the
*alleged climate change* is being allowed to degrade our
lives and affluence owes more to politics, band-wagoning,
and career-building than it does to science."
/quote

There is nothing alleged about Climate change, the only (non cranks)
debate is about what is causing it - heck even Pres. Bush Jnr. now
accepts that "Climate Change" is real.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .. .
snip

Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served
using china
crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's
nearly all
throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps
some bean-
counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which
has had a
useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the
dishes.

They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an
hour?


Don't you mean £5.75 (or what ever the NuLabour minimum wage is
now)?...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
There were huge notices boasting about how green M & S is, all
about how they recycle their bags and so forth. We had a simple
meal for two (just sandwiches and a bun) and at the end we had a
tray absolutely full of plastic wrappers.

This has more to do with over the top food hygiene regulations, not a
lot they can do about it, other than stop selling the food.


Hear, hear! I was nauseated when Gordon Brown announced he wanted
to ban carrier bags. What a complete load of ********.


Indeed, he knows that there most people will just view the 'charge'
that will be imposed as a tax on shopping, this means that HMG will
(through the tax/VAT system) have a large amount of"ring fenced" money
to hand out to the chosen NGOs, this in turn will allow HMG to reduce
the amount handed out via HMG departments by the Treasurery As you
say, it's ********, just more stelth taxation.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:24:38 +0100, ":Jerry:"
wrote:

Neither Nigel Lawson, nor Bill, nor others here, are a climate
scientists, so none are qualified to speak on such issues.

Nor are political activists and politicians but they are the ones who
are steamrollering through ever more ridicules 'environmental'
legislation. :~(

If you want to know what real scientists think about climate change
try this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2004/12/about/
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
snip

Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served using
china
crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's nearly
all
throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps some
bean-
counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which has
had a
useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the dishes.

They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an hour?


Don't you mean £5.75 (or what ever the NuLabour minimum wage is now)?...

That's the point. At £5.75 an hour it's cheaper to use disposable utensils.

--
Max Demian

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .. .
snip

Twenty-five years ago in any works canteen you would be served
using china
crockery, metal cutlery and tea out of a real teapot. Now it's
nearly all
throwaway plastic (unless you're management of course). Perhaps
some bean-
counter has worked out that it's cheaper to discard plastic which
has had a
useful life of a few hours than to pay human beings to wash the
dishes.

They're probably right. Would you like to wash dishes for £2 an
hour?


Don't you mean £5.75 (or what ever the NuLabour minimum wage is
now)?...

That's the point. At £5.75 an hour it's cheaper to use disposable
utensils.


Further to the point, there were plenty of people who *would* have
washed dishes for £2 ph (part time) to give them some 'pin money' and
a free meal each day they worked for two or three hours - now they
don't work (because the jobs are not around), sit in front of the TV
all day eating cheapo 'junk-food', claiming Tax Credit whilst waiting
for their kids to get home from secondary school...

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

In article , Steve Thackery wrote:
But to think that banning carrier bags is a worthwhile thing, whilst*
completely ignoring every other source of packaging waste, is stupid and*
inane, and is nothing other than lip-service.

Quite. It's not wrong, but it's not nearly enough.

Rod.

Seriously OT - primarily for Bill
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:37:10 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

I've already plonked Bill, so I'll let most of his rubbish go straight
through to the trash, where it belongs ...

Hah! Obviously you're an open-minded kind of guy, without prejudice and
willing to listen to dissenting points of view. (NOT).

The trouble is that Bill is not open-minded, and there's only so much
OT bull**** a man can tolerate.

The problem faced by scientists is that their funding is determined to a
large extent by politics (in the larger, human sense).

That is true, and is more so in recent years than it ever used to be.

At the moment we DO
have a degree of cultural hysteria about global warming.

That is also true. It has been described as 'climate porn' and has
even been the subject of scientific investigation in itself.

It's decried by many scientists, for example because of the way it
engenders a feeling of helpless doom in the general public, and this
disempowering apathy translates into an unwillingness to face the
problem and make any lifestyle changes.

And the problem is
that - if a scientist wants funding - they've pretty well got to jump onto
that bandwagon.

That is NOT true. Businesses such as Exxon, that have funded
anti-MMGW politicians such as the ventriloquist's dummy that is
currently trying to pass for a president, have also funded anti-MMGW
research for the last decade or so.

The "market" for their research is hungry for ANYTHING to do with global
warming, so that is where they target their "products".

A self-serving biased description. You could equally well present it
as that scientists value their own potential contribution too highly
to squander it trying to disprove a scientific consensus which they
themselves have no quarrel with. The truth probably lies somewhere in
between.

This does NOT in
itself make global warming a big problem.

But equally it isn't an argument against those facts that *are* known,
and those facts have led to said scientific consensus.

Let me finish by saying that I am NOT a head-in-the-sand global warming
naysayer. At the moment I am unconvinced but open-minded.

I think any fair-minded person with knowledge of this ng, reading your
post that started this thread, would disagree with the above
description of yourself. Quote: "Bill, and fellow climate change
sceptics." Anyone here who has read even a tenth of Bill's output on
the subject would immediately take that as meaning *you* also have a
particular axe to grind.