gbenjo Posted January 10, 2020 #626 Share Posted January 10, 2020 13 hours ago, in rod we trust said: offcourse we are .. we anglers and then moved on to explorers navigated the world and founded countries .. and yes you live in one of them the only hazard in botany bay is royal carribean and state gov but I doubt that it will be built when we protest in great numbers as planned .. once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases Please confirm with "accurate " truthful supporting data. 1. Royal Caribbean is the only cruise line that wants a cruise terminal 2. One cruise ship emits almost the same amount of toxic greenhouse gases as 200,00 cars. Could you also confirm that the 'claimate" activists (not a spelling error) will boycott cruising...it will be so good to know that they will not be on any cruises that any of us" real" cruisers may be on. Then again maybe they could glue themselves to the bottom of Botany Bay (just for an hour or so)to help the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikeanswers Posted January 10, 2020 #627 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, gbenjo said: 2. One cruise ship emits almost the same amount of toxic greenhouse gases as 200,00 cars. I am guessing this is the study he is referring to: Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study To be fair it does only refer to one gas. Edited January 10, 2020 by ilikeanswers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare MicCanberra Posted January 11, 2020 #628 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said: Their boats carried the same amount of people as Arthur Phillip's fleet along with livestock and whatever was needed to start crop production so I think they qualify as ships just as much as anything the ancient Greeks were using. The land bridge wasn't there forever and there were multiple migrations to Australia so at some point someone had to use a boat to get here and from the evidence that has been discovered in South Africa we know the relationship humans have with the sea began far earlier than originally thought and after they used all the coastal resources they started to experiment with boats in order to keep surviving. So in fact humans may have in fact become seafarers long not long after the first humans left Africa. History keeps being rewritten as we learn knew things 😉 So not anglers then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Traveller Posted January 11, 2020 #629 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, gbenjo said: Then again maybe they could glue themselves to the bottom of Botany Bay (just for an hour or so)to help the cause. A suggestion that made me laugh out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
in rod we trust Posted January 11, 2020 #630 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, gbenjo said: Please confirm with "accurate " truthful supporting data. 1. Royal Caribbean is the only cruise line that wants a cruise terminal 2. One cruise ship emits almost the same amount of toxic greenhouse gases as 200,00 cars. Could you also confirm that the 'claimate" activists (not a spelling error) will boycott cruising...it will be so good to know that they will not be on any cruises that any of us" real" cruisers may be on. Then again maybe they could glue themselves to the bottom of Botany Bay (just for an hour or so)to help the cause. told you many times go back and read some of the post you will find your answer if your too lazy to look or search it , its not for me to keep on reposting it but just for you as your lazy to look that's probably why you want the terminal as well your just too lazy to go to any other port other than in your back yard .. by the way there is a lot of talk about boycotting cruise ships due to there pollution , and protest to be held against them .. so you might have the whole ship to yourself , your a lucky bugger imagine a whole ship to yourself .. you can pick up chicks with it lol.. if the cruise ships want to destroy beaches and reefs around the globe just for there greed , then they should be ready for the repercussion of there actions https://cruisepassenger.com.au/why-sydneys-cruise-industry-could-be-worth-over-2-billion/ Edited January 11, 2020 by in rod we trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Traveller Posted January 11, 2020 #631 Share Posted January 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, in rod we trust said: told you many times go back and read some of the post you will find your answer if your too lazy to look or search it , its not for me to keep on reposting it but just for you as your lazy to look that's probably why you want the terminal as well your just too lazy to go to any other port other than in your back yard https://cruisepassenger.com.au/why-sydneys-cruise-industry-could-be-worth-over-2-billion/ I don't know what you are trying to prove with this link. Rod, I have been reading your posts and respectfully suggest that you would make your case better if you were not so (dare I say it) rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
in rod we trust Posted January 11, 2020 #632 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said: I don't know what you are trying to prove with this link. Rod, I have been reading your posts and respectfully suggest that you would make your case better if you were not so (dare I say it) rude. im not rude but when somebody ask you to post something up time and time again and all they need to do is go back and look it up it gets old real quick .. if I do come across as rude I apologize to him and anybody else as that is not my intention .. cheers that link is for him to read about royal carribean and there intentions and lobbying nsw liberals to build the port botany terminal for there oasis class ships.. there are other links as well he can look up that was just a quick one for him to read Edited January 11, 2020 by in rod we trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Traveller Posted January 11, 2020 #633 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, in rod we trust said: once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases The report about pollution from cruise ships refers to Carnival Corporation's 100 cruise ships (not one ship). I do not know how accurate this study is. Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulphur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all 260 million European cars in 2017, a new analysis by sustainable transport group Transport & Environment reveals. Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study Edited January 11, 2020 by Aus Traveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinbadThePorter Posted January 11, 2020 #634 Share Posted January 11, 2020 5 hours ago, ilikeanswers said: The land bridge wasn't there forever There has never been a land bridge between Australia and Asia. The closest to it was a gap of about 100km between Timor and northern Australia about 18,000 years ago during the previous glacial maximum. At the time Aboriginals crossed, about 50-60,000 years ago, the sea levels were slightly higher. In either case Australia was over the horizon from the view of someone on the shore of Asia. There was also a longer island hopping route through the Moluccas to New Guinea which probably needed voyages of 50km or less. So to get here Aboriginal ancestors would have had to have boats capable of surviving in the open ocean. There are two purposes for boats, transport and fishing. In early cultures they were used for both. So whatever kind of boats were used to reach Australia they were almost certainly crewed by the people who used them, fishermen (or fisherwomen). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Traveller Posted January 11, 2020 #635 Share Posted January 11, 2020 I am not disagreeing, but debate relies on theories. Dare I quote Wikipedia? There is considerable discussion among archeologists as to the route taken by the first migrants to Australia, widely taken to be ancestors of the modern Aboriginal peoples. Migration took place during the closing stages of the Pleistocene, when sea levels were much lower than they are today. Repeated episodes of extended glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch resulted in decreases of sea levels by more than 100 metres in Australasia. People appear to have arrived by sea during a period of glaciation, when New Guinea and Tasmania were joined to the continent of Australia. The continental coastline extended much further out into the Timor Sea, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait. Nevertheless, the sea still presented a major obstacle so it is theorised that these ancestral people reached Australia by island hopping. Two routes have been proposed. One follows an island chain between Sulawesi and New Guinea and the other reaches North Western Australia via Timor.Rupert Gerritsen has suggested an alternative theory, involving accidental colonisation as a result of tsunamis. The journey still required sea travel however, making them amongst the world's earlier mariners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By The Bay Posted January 11, 2020 #636 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said: The report about pollution from cruise ships refers to Carnival Corporation's 100 cruise ships (not one ship). I do not know how accurate this study is. Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulphur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all 260 million European cars in 2017, a new analysis by sustainable transport group Transport & Environment reveals. Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study And that is only "around European coasts". And one company. Edited January 11, 2020 by By The Bay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinbadThePorter Posted January 11, 2020 #637 Share Posted January 11, 2020 13 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said: I am not disagreeing, but debate relies on theories. But what you quote is pretty much exactly what I said.🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Traveller Posted January 11, 2020 #638 Share Posted January 11, 2020 7 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said: But what you quote is pretty much exactly what I said.🤔 Additional research usually adds more theories to the debate. It has also been suggested/proven that ancestors of the Aborigines came in a couple of different waves of migration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbenjo Posted January 11, 2020 #639 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, in rod we trust said: told you many times go back and read some of the post you will find your answer if your too lazy to look or search it , its not for me to keep on reposting it but just for you as your lazy to look that's probably why you want the terminal as well your just too lazy to go to any other port other than in your back yard .. by the way there is a lot of talk about boycotting cruise ships due to there pollution , and protest to be held against them .. so you might have the whole ship to yourself , your a lucky bugger imagine a whole ship to yourself .. you can pick up chicks with it lol.. if the cruise ships want to destroy beaches and reefs around the globe just for there greed , then they should be ready for the repercussion of there actions https://cruisepassenger.com.au/why-sydneys-cruise-industry-could-be-worth-over-2-billion/ Thanks Rod (but I will pass on the trusting you ) for providing the link, I assume, you are basing your "dislike" of RCCL upon. Having read it I cannot find any reference to Royal being the only cruise line that wants the new terminal and certainly no mention of them being a financial backer for the project as you alledge. Granted the Govt. may seek financial support from the cruise lines as, I assume, would be the case in any venture like this but in the end it is the Port Authority / Govt building the terminal, not RCCL. You persist in ignoring the considerable financial boost such a terminal would give to the local economy while focusing only on the assumed destruction of Botany Bay. I am reasonably comfortable thinking , in this day and age, that any terminal that will be built ,will be built under strict guidelines and controls..once they decide where to build it of course. As for me being too lazy to travel to embark on a cruise, I like many other true legitimate cruisers on this forum, have traveled to various parts of the world to join a cruise. As you have also chosen to ignore, I have said a couple of times that to build a terminal in Newcastle, Wollongong, Eden or any other location outside of Sydney makes no practical, logistic ,common or any other sense The cruise industry is after all, a business and it would make no business sense to do so. PS I would, if need be, travel to such ports , not a problem. By the way, as for your suggestion that if I had the ship to myself (because of your boycotts) I could pick up chicks..how could I ...I would be the only guest on the ship?????? FYI I am also more than happily married so have no interest in such an activity. I even let my wife make her own decisions on what and where she wants to go for a holiday...its 2020. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Big_M Posted January 11, 2020 #640 Share Posted January 11, 2020 On 1/10/2020 at 8:53 PM, in rod we trust said: offcourse we are .. we anglers and then moved on to explorers navigated the world and founded countries .. and yes you live in one of them the only hazard in botany bay is royal carribean and state gov but I doubt that it will be built when we protest in great numbers as planned .. once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases You really shouldn't let delusions form due to a general bias against shipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbenjo Posted January 11, 2020 #641 Share Posted January 11, 2020 6 hours ago, The_Big_M said: You really shouldn't let delusions form due to a general bias against shipping. Yes, He certainly talks a lot of ship doesn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell21 Posted January 11, 2020 #642 Share Posted January 11, 2020 26 minutes ago, gbenjo said: Yes, He certainly talks a lot of ship doesn't he? Yes, he's full of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare MicCanberra Posted January 11, 2020 #643 Share Posted January 11, 2020 12 minutes ago, Russell21 said: Yes, he's full of it. They certainly only has the one angle and seems to be fishing for support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare lyndarra Posted January 11, 2020 #644 Share Posted January 11, 2020 2 hours ago, MicCanberra said: They certainly only has the one angle and seems to be fishing for support. Please, no bait(ing) here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare MicCanberra Posted January 12, 2020 #645 Share Posted January 12, 2020 2 hours ago, lyndarra said: Please, no bait(ing) here. Got you hooked.😋 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Traveller Posted January 12, 2020 #646 Share Posted January 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, MicCanberra said: Got you hooked.😋 I would say that the fishing Rod has a few people hooked.😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare MicCanberra Posted January 12, 2020 #647 Share Posted January 12, 2020 17 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said: I would say that the fishing Rod has a few people hooked.😁 Trawling perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinbadThePorter Posted January 12, 2020 #648 Share Posted January 12, 2020 I don't have a horse in this race since being a Brisbanite I can look forward to a world class Cruise Terminal at the end of year and I will no longer have to fly to Sydney to get on decent ships. But I have to say that Rod has a point. If a cruise terminal at Yarra Bay goes ahead it does represent a loss of increasingly rare undeveloped foreshore in the Sydney region and that's not something anybody should be happy with. Yet those that say a third cruise terminal is desperately needed are also correct. Perhaps the terminal will make up for the loss of foreshore, maybe not. Since this is a cruise website it's obvious which view holds sway. However it's pretty poor form to mock someone who holds a legitimate point of view and it disappoints me. Anyway it's very early days in the approval process and the fate of Yarra Bay is not decided. It may turn out to be Molineaux Point. Who knows? The best we can hope for is that the NSW government doesn't cave to various monied interests and treat Yarra Bay as the default simply because any other option is inconvenient to the big end of town. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikeanswers Posted January 12, 2020 #649 Share Posted January 12, 2020 9 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said: Yet those that say a third cruise terminal is desperately needed are also correct. Perhaps the terminal will make up for the loss of foreshore, maybe not. Since this is a cruise website it's obvious which view holds sway. I question whether a third terminal is that necessary. I worry about Sydney putting too many eggs in the cruising basket. There are lots of examples in the world that if you prioritise cruising to the detriment of other tourism it ends up being less beneficial for the locals. Also I feel the real priority in the tourism should be the development of regional tourism. As farming becomes less productive the people living in regional areas are going to need something else to supplement their incomes and tourism is so far proving to be a good accompaniment. And while it is all good to have Australians visiting these areas it would be even better to get more international visitors to go beyond the Blue Mountains. I think it would be more beneficial to get visitors spending more time exploring Australia off the cruise ship rather than on a cruise ship. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbenjo Posted January 12, 2020 #650 Share Posted January 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said: I would say that the fishing Rod has a few people hooked.😁 Some could say a bent rod 11 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said: I question whether a third terminal is that necessary. I worry about Sydney putting too many eggs in the cruising basket. There are lots of examples in the world that if you prioritise cruising to the detriment of other tourism it ends up being less beneficial for the locals. Also I feel the real priority in the tourism should be the development of regional tourism. As farming becomes less productive the people living in regional areas are going to need something else to supplement their incomes and tourism is so far proving to be a good accompaniment. And while it is all good to have Australians visiting these areas it would be even better to get more international visitors to go beyond the Blue Mountains. I think it would be more beneficial to get visitors spending more time exploring Australia off the cruise ship rather than on a cruise ship. However Sydney for the most part is not a port of call, instead is a port to start/ finish a cruise so the “local” tourism occurs before or after a cruise. It would follow then that the more passengers, especially from overseas, who are in Sydney would increase the demand for local tours etc. The more people the better the strike rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts