The Chant of the Barbie Dolls

As a post "Messiah" performance treat, many moons ago, I was trying to book a table for 4 at 10pm on the last Friday before Xmas at a nice restaurant and not having any joy at all. Until, that is, I tried Bibendum, and got the reservation I wanted. Pre service indications were good - I got a phone call on the day confirming the reservation and when I said we might be a little late as we had to come from a performance, they assured me there was no problem. As it happens we arrived punctually, but were kept waiting for 10 minutes before being seated, for which the management were profusely apologetic and offered us some champagne on the house as we eventually sat down. Which was a nice and appreciated touch so we were happy.

The surroundings were wonderful - amazing art deco posters, terrific stained glass Michelin man windows, and really comfortable relaxed seating, and a pleasant buzz about the dining room. We had our orders for food and wine taken promptly by unobtrusive staff, which was again appreciated as we were pretty deep in conversation at this point. One universal quibble was, as with, it seems, all Conran restaurants, the menu is ridiculously hard to read and understand, written as it is in some semi-undecipherable hieroglyphics. The prices are staggeringly clear, though, and could cause the faint hearted some palpitations, so be warned this is an expensive restaurant. Plenty of bread, crisps (highly unusual in my experience) and some very tasty olives were proffered as starter nibbles.

I had goujons of plaice to start with a coriander vinegar, as did one other person, and the other starters were a half dozen oysters and a plate of mussels. The oysters with shallot vinegar were probably the best bet of the starters, although somewhat pricey (at about £18), and got necked without being offered around. In fact, most of the starters ranged between £10-25, and there was quite a good selection. The mussels were pronounced to be an unenthusiastic "ok", and the plaice goujons were actually very good - deep fried but not at all fatty, although I found them and the vinegar a little bland.

The main course selection did provide some challenging dishes - of these our foursome were generally quite unadventurous - two of us went for the peppered fillet steak (expensive at about £25, and that did not include any sides). One of us went for haddock and chips, which, enormous and tasty though it was, was left unfinished. The real gastronaut amongst us though went for kidneys and black pudding on a bed of cabbage with gravy. Having tasted a bit I was extremely sorry I didn't go for it myself - it was utterly delicious, and even though my steak was a perfectly cooked mouth wateringly thick piece of excellent meat, with an rich intense meaty jus, it was as nought in comparison with the chocolately offal textures and flavours. Sides of boiled potatoes and spinach were good, but expensive additions to the main dish.

Dessert for me was a superb crème brulee, although there was still a little un-bruleed sugar around the edges if I were being picky. Coffee followed. The whole thing including service came to more that £200 for 4, including an excellent bottle of South African red. Our bill took a very long time to obtain though, because of some faulty machinery - we ended up paying with one of those old fashioned manual card impression swipers, and received a Bibendum Michelin man ash tray for all our troubles.

Given the surroundings, the quality of the food, wine list and particularly our experience of the service, that's really not that bad as we've often unwittingly ended up paying a lot more for a lot worse in London. This may lack the theatre crowd and occasional famous thespian that the other Conran we've been to might sport (The Almeida in Islington), but we found the service better, and the quality a notch or two above it's Islington cousin, if a little more formal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/07/robin-mckie-benny-peiser-climate?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Benny Peiser says:

"While I reject economically damaging and, for that reason, politically unattainable climate policies, I am in favour of adapting to a changing climate and making our societies more resilient, as mankind has throughout its existence. "

Peiser is personally entitled to reject "economically damaging" policies to tackle climate change, but he is NOT entitled to the non-sequiteur that they are therefore "politically unattainable". As far as I am concerned, bailing out failed banks is very economically damaging (short, medium and long term), yet somehow that's "politically attainable".

In other words, he has no monopoly on the definition of what is economically damaging; and what's politically attainable is not his unilateral decision. Turkeys can vote for Christmas, if the alternative is ending up as foie gras. If society decides to damage HIS (by definition short term) economic interests (and/or mine) for the sake of long term avoidance of the impact of climate change, so be it. The fact that he is "in favour of adapting to a changing climate....." is the same as saying he is in favour of wrapping up warm when it's cold out i.e. he is saying and advocating precisely nothing. Of course we're not REALLY talking about his or my economic interests, we're talking about Lawson et al's economic interests, aren't we?

If Peiser can make associations like "climate change policies are economically damaging" then anyone can. "Climate change policies are economically favourable" because they include the introduction of new forms of technology giving rise to new jobs in brand new economic sectors. That's just as likely to be correct and/or just as easy to argue. Not to mention that when ever it happens, and it will, fossil fuels will run out: "Early adaptors of alternative technologies will benefit, in the same way as early adaptors of fossil fuel economics did." See? I can make up baseless assertions that sound like they make sense as well as Peiser. Which is why we have the scientific method. Peiser's assertions about the nature of the credibility of climate science are just that - assertions with no basis in fact.

What's interesting though is that he appears so embedded (of course, given his job), his implicit assumptions make clear to the rest of us what we really need to understand:

The political process is so corrupt that it can't represent the interests of ordinary people, so hijacked has it been by vested short term interests. If you want something done about climate change, voting labour, tory, lib dem or green wont help. It's only through sustained grass roots activism akin to the abolitionist movement, or the civil rights or anti-war movements in the US in the '60's that sufficient change will take place. These examples show us it can, even in the teeth of the vicious guard-dogs slavering to "protect" us from "economic damage".

His late stage denialist position: "ok, global warming can occur due to anthropogenic CO2, but it wont be as bad as they say" is the "modern dinner-party denialist about town" fall back stance of surprisingly many otherwise well educated but, crucially, innumerate middle class opinion formers. Over ciabatta they opine: "Global warming, oh sure that exists, but predicting the future, computer models, what's all that about? I'm sure it can't be as bad as all that". How long will it take for the fall back to the "ok, global warming is real, and it will be bad as you said, BUT ......" stance?