Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

RocketMan275

Members
  • Content Count

    7,043
  • Joined

About RocketMan275

  • Rank
    5,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    North Alabama
  • Interests
    Enjoying retirement.
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Holland
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call
    The ship is the destination.

Recent Profile Visitors

475 profile views
  1. I do not know if they are a travel agency but I do suggest you 'google' them. Especially their reviews. Also check Trip Adviser.
  2. You are to be commended. I choose to make other choices. time to leave this thread as I sense it's going to go the way of the formal night threads.
  3. Of course, that would work much better if applied to the environmental blowhards.
  4. From the article I linked too: "This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. "
  5. I was thinking about the Climate Gate emails. Still, I'm all too skeptical of the IPCC. Here's a nice article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#4fc9111b428e
  6. The IPCC? Isn't that the group caught fudging numbers and research?
  7. If they're booking through a PCC, they aren't comparison shopping. My TA will always match what a PCC can offer and will also add an additional discount of 8-10%. The problem is two-fold. First, many people figure a TA adds their commission to the price offered by HAL/PCC. Therefore, it costs more to use a TA. Second, many TA will only match what HAL/PCC offers. You have to look to find a TA that discounts. They're good and they're out there.
  8. I certainly agree that there are those who try to use science to advance their political objectives. But, speaking of science. The scientific method is the basis of science. This method advances an hypothesis, A happens because of B. Predictions are made from the hypothesis. Data is gathered and it is compared to the predictions. A central tenet of the scientific method is that the hypothesis must be 'falsifiable', ie proven wrong. The hypothesis that man is causing global climate change isn't something that can be proven wrong. When the argument changed from global warming to climate change, the argument lost it's connection to the scientific method. Any change in the climate, ie, it gets hotter, it gets colder, it gets wetter, it gets drier, all can be taken as evidence of climate change. But, if you try to argue that because of man/carbon, it's getting hotter, you can disprove that, it is falsifiable. But, if the argument is that man/carbon is causing it to get both hotter and colder, that argument cannot be falsifiable, therefore it cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method. It maybe many things but it cannot be 'scientific'. A second thing is money. Money for 'science' tends to follow what is popular. In the eighties, it was AIDS. It was much easier to get grants if you could show a relationship between your research and AIDS. Now, the popular subject is climate change. A large number of 'scientists' owe their finances to research into global climate change. Does this affect their 'science'? We cannot take the position that oil/coal money is suspect without also be suspicious of the other money flowing into this research. A scientist who doesn't produce the 'right' answers will have difficulty in obtaining future grants. Should we try to be better custodians? Of course. But we should also be aware that most of these efforts are purely symbolic with little lasting effect. I'm sure we all have seen projections similar to this: if we spend $X trillions, we can reduce the global temperature by 0.2 degrees cel. in 2080. Surely, one should question if this is the wisest use of $X Trillions.
  9. One thing evident from this thread. Holland needs two/three new ships.
  10. Yours is he first mention of politics in this thread. Other than that, not one word of politics has been uttered. It's only political if one believes criticism is politically motivated.
  11. Perhaps this is then end of cyclic warming period and the beginning of a cooling period. But, the real question is can we do anything about it? If it's a natural cycle, then all we can do is hang on and do our best to mitigate the effects. I'm very skeptical of the global warming industrial complex. But, then, I'm old enough to remember reading how carbon dioxide was going to cause a new ice age. It just seems that all the solutions result in higher taxes, lower standards of living, and more government. And, none of these 'solutions' would solve the problem, if there is one.
  12. Holland will allow you to book an 1100 flight out of Vancouver on their Flight Ease website. Not saying it's workable, just saying that's the earliest flights Holland will book. Unfortunately, the earliest flight for my cruise, that leaves after 1100, is at 6:55PM. we won't get home until 0930, the next day.
  13. l have been following the 'science' since the early 70s. I find it less than convincing. I would be more inclined to take the 'science' seriously if those pushing the 'science' took it seriously. Show me a plan that actually prevents global warming. How do you propose reducing carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels without reducing the standard of living to pre-industrial levels? Changing light bulbs and buying offsets are like spitting in the ocean. Solar and wind won't do it either. How do we convince the undeveloped countries to be satisfied with their standards of living unless we're willing to reduce ours to their levels? Are we willing to institute a global government with sufficient power to implement the plan? FWIW, I did read one plan that purported to keep global warming in check. It was published in, IIRC, the Guardian. The plan required everyone to move into high rise, energy efficient, apartments. Single family homes were outlawed as too energy in-efficient. Only those working on farms would be allowed to remain in the country side. Meat would be a rarity. No privately owned transportation (other than bicycles.) Flights into and out of England would be limited to less than 20 per day. A vacation by air would be a once in a life time event. No cruise ships either. I am not demeaning anyone. If anything, I'm demeaning the concept that saving the world from global warming would be as easy as 'buying offsets'. That only enriches those selling those things.
×
×
  • Create New...