Notices
Like Tree38Likes

Sharks!

Old 02-12-2019, 09:47 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 425
Default

Sharks, lion fish and Democrats-Our childrens fishing is gonna suck.
arczr2, Molanabe and Redbeans like this.
nickess is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 09:57 AM
  #22  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,947
Default

Some years more sharks than others, and depends a lot on how you fish. Sharks for sure 100% will follow boats, we see all kinds of fish follow shrimp boats. This also can have a lot to do with large numbers in a location. If the sharks follow a couple of boats into an area, then the boats pick up nets to leave for whatever reason. Then you have a large concentration of sharks in a small area until they disperse.

If anyone wants to read the real story as to why the Polar bears are grouped up in that town, here is the link. Needless to say the Media and the gloom and doom global warming crowd are lying to you.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/...-russian-town/
txtightline likes this.

Last edited by Jeepman; 02-12-2019 at 10:08 AM.
Jeepman is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:06 AM
  #23  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville, 'Merica!
Posts: 1,500
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
Your understanding of science is almost terrifying. Climate change is bad, and it has measurable effects right now, but any talk about making the earth uninhabitable in 10 years is complete BS, and I am absolutely certain that Inconvenient Truth never made that claim. I would love to know your source for that that. More fires, more droughts, more storms and more positive feedback loops making the above even more frequent, possibly becoming irreversible, but not uninhabitable. There are islands and cities that are already constantly flooded and permanent living will be impracticable to impossible, but not the entire planet.

As far as the "polar bear invasion" it's basic biology. Destroy the habitat, remove the food sources and predators will start looking for food elsewhere. A town full of trash and cooking fires smells pretty good to a starving bear. The fact that you are seeing more animals does not mean the population is increasing, hell that's the entire point of the red snapper debate. But when you survey the tundra and see a decrease in bear numbers, a decrease in breeding pairs, a decrease in cubs, a decrease in prey and less ice making it difficult to hunt and travel, and the bears that you do see are skinnier and in worse health it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that isn't great for the species.

I'm sure most of the shark populations in the gulf are healthy, but that doesn't mean the rest of the seas are too. And it's laughable that people use the "follow the money" saying to attack the scientists making 50k a year with masters and doctorates on their shelf, to defend the billionaires and millionaires in the fossil fuels industry. Have any of you guys ever seen or worked with biologists before? There isn't a single biologist in the business to get rich, that's for sure. It's also telling that Exxon and Shell knew about the impacts they were causing way back in the 70's and 80's. So is it more likely that the $4 trillion fossil fuel industry is trying to protect their profits or the dude driving the 1980 F-150 is trying to get rich by writing papers for an obscure journal that the general public doesn't read?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/ .
Just so we're clear...the scientists listed below that made predictions beginning on Earth Day 1970 were wrong, but all the current scientists making "man made climate change" predictions are right?

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Marlin308 is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:12 AM
  #24  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,947
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
but any talk about making the earth uninhabitable in 10 years is complete BS, and I am absolutely certain that Inconvenient Truth never made that claim. I would love to know your source for that that. .
It was a Democrat lawmaker, young women who is on all the cable new outlets that made the claim the earth would be gone in 12 years. Her statement was based on a UN climate change report.

Dire New UN Climate Change Report Says Earth Has 12 Years to Take Action

Dire New UN Climate Change Report Says Earth Has 12 Years to Take Action - D-brief
Molanabe likes this.
Jeepman is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:38 AM
  #25  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 213
Default

[QUOTE=bluescholar;12235679]Your understanding of science is almost terrifying. Climate change is bad, and it has measurable effects right now, but any talk about making the earth uninhabitable in 10 years is complete BS, and I am absolutely certain that Inconvenient Truth never made that claim. I would love to know your source for that that. More fires, more droughts, more storms and more positive feedback loops making the above even more frequent, possibly becoming irreversible, but not uninhabitable. There are islands and cities that are already constantly flooded and permanent living will be impracticable to impossible, but not the entire planet.

As far as the "polar bear invasion" it's basic biology. Destroy the habitat, remove the food sources and predators will start looking for food elsewhere. A town full of trash and cooking fires smells pretty good to a starving bear. The fact that you are seeing more animals does not mean the population is increasing, hell that's the entire point of the red snapper debate. But when you survey the tundra and see a decrease in bear numbers, a decrease in breeding pairs, a decrease in cubs, a decrease in prey and less ice making it difficult to hunt and travel, and the bears that you do see are skinnier and in worse health it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that isn't great for the species.


Do you have any peer reviewed and repeatable studies that lend support to the theory there are "More fires, more droughts, more storms" now as opposed to say in 1832 when few could read let alone log meteorological data? If so, then in all sincerity I would like to see them so I can make an informed judgment. Or, are you once again coming onto the THT and talking out your ass? And if so, when does your EDF membership run out?
TideOutsider and Redbeans like this.
trarmer007 is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:03 PM
  #26  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: FL Panhandle
Posts: 937
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
More fires
Incorrect. More homes, decades of fires being put out before spreading and burning fuel, less controlled burning, more media, more cameras, more avenues to spared news far and wide. Pre-man controlling fire, fire was natural and part of nature's balance.

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
more droughts
We were up 20-something inches above average rainfall this year where I live.

​​​​​​​
Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
more storms
07-16 was a historically quiet decade for hurricanes.

​​​​​​
Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
There are islands and cities that are already constantly flooded and permanent living will be impracticable to impossible, but not the entire planet.
Are the cities flooded from the droughts or from the mm rise in sea level?


Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
The fact that you are seeing more animals does not mean the population is increasing, hell that's the entire point of the red snapper debate. But when you survey the tundra and see a decrease in bear numbers, a decrease in breeding pairs, a decrease in cubs, a decrease in prey and less ice making it difficult to hunt and travel, and the bears that you do see are skinnier and in worse health it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that isn't great for the species.
Your understanding of red snapper populations and their habitat is almost terrifying.
arczr2, trarmer007 and Molanabe like this.
Southern Hooker is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:26 PM
  #27  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Mistersippi
Posts: 2,485
Default

Originally Posted by nickess View Post
Sharks, lion fish and Democrats-Our childrens fishing is gonna suck.
You said sharks twice.
arczr2 likes this.
JCC123 is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:31 PM
  #28  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dauphin Island,Al.
Posts: 1,707
Default

Thought this was about SHARKS???
arczr2, gov700 and ace1102 like this.
dryhydro is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 03:19 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: NOLA Brah
Posts: 1,575
Default

Originally Posted by dryhydro View Post
Thought this was about SHARKS???
Well, it's perfectly obvious the shark populations are exploding in anticipation of eating all the dead humans that come washing down due to global warming and the imminent destruction of humankind.
dryhydro, Jeepman, arczr2 and 1 others like this.
Rollo Tomassi is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:54 AM
  #30  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Florida
Posts: 87
Default

Bring back long lining for a season or two....
Molanabe is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 06:41 AM
  #31  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dauphin Island,Al.
Posts: 1,707
Default

Originally Posted by Molanabe View Post
Bring back long lining for a season or two....
Yep!!!
dryhydro is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 06:50 AM
  #32  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bayville, NJ
Posts: 1,040
Default

Originally Posted by nickess View Post
Sharks, lion fish and Democrats-Our childrens fishing is gonna suck.
No politics. Enjoy your vacation.
r_ventura_23 is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 07:01 AM
  #33  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 12,238
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
Your understanding of science is almost terrifying. Climate change is bad, and it has measurable effects right now, but any talk about making the earth uninhabitable in 10 years is complete BS, and I am absolutely certain that Inconvenient Truth never made that claim. I would love to know your source for that that. More fires, more droughts, more storms and more positive feedback loops making the above even more frequent, possibly becoming irreversible, but not uninhabitable. There are islands and cities that are already constantly flooded and permanent living will be impracticable to impossible, but not the entire planet.

As far as the "polar bear invasion" it's basic biology. Destroy the habitat, remove the food sources and predators will start looking for food elsewhere. A town full of trash and cooking fires smells pretty good to a starving bear. The fact that you are seeing more animals does not mean the population is increasing, hell that's the entire point of the red snapper debate. But when you survey the tundra and see a decrease in bear numbers, a decrease in breeding pairs, a decrease in cubs, a decrease in prey and less ice making it difficult to hunt and travel, and the bears that you do see are skinnier and in worse health it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that isn't great for the species.

I'm sure most of the shark populations in the gulf are healthy, but that doesn't mean the rest of the seas are too. And it's laughable that people use the "follow the money" saying to attack the scientists making 50k a year with masters and doctorates on their shelf, to defend the billionaires and millionaires in the fossil fuels industry. Have any of you guys ever seen or worked with biologists before? There isn't a single biologist in the business to get rich, that's for sure. It's also telling that Exxon and Shell knew about the impacts they were causing way back in the 70's and 80's. So is it more likely that the $4 trillion fossil fuel industry is trying to protect their profits or the dude driving the 1980 F-150 is trying to get rich by writing papers for an obscure journal that the general public doesn't read?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-40-years-ago/ .
I have worked with a number of biologists and scientists over the years. Almost universally they were academics who couldn't cut it in a non-academic environment. Almost universally they were beholden to their employer and their employer's agenda. Almost universally their results matched the bias they held. With that said, I know a number of researchers who are truly independent and committed to quality science, I have never worked with them though. Far too much "science" is a follow the money proposition. If the CDC had grant money to give to "scientists" for research on gun violence, you'd never see that science point to the inarguable fact that the overwhelming majority of our gun violence can be traced to a very small demographic. Why? Because that scientist or that scientific group would never get grant money from the CDC again.

Anecdotally I noticed shark populations began to explode when the practice of "finning" was outlawed. Back in my days as a boarding officer, just about every shrimper on the Gulf had shark fins strung up in the rigging drying.

Last edited by Paul Barnard; 02-14-2019 at 07:14 AM.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 07:05 AM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Palm Harbor, Florida
Posts: 166
Default

Warmer water, more artificial reef structures, abundant ARS, no one killing sharks. GOM is the shark nursery of the world.

As mentioned, think the fishing is rough? Try spearfishing in the summer.
CuzzA is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 08:33 AM
  #35  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 88
Default

Originally Posted by CuzzA View Post
Warmer water, more artificial reef structures, abundant ARS, no one killing sharks. GOM is the shark nursery of the world.

As mentioned, think the fishing is rough? Try spearfishing in the summer.
spearfishing in the summer was like going into a war zone.
GC88 is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 08:34 AM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 178
Default

Originally Posted by Jeepman View Post
It was a Democrat lawmaker, young women who is on all the cable new outlets that made the claim the earth would be gone in 12 years. Her statement was based on a UN climate change report.

Dire New UN Climate Change Report Says Earth Has 12 Years to Take Action


Dire New UN Climate Change Report Says Earth Has 12 Years to Take Action - D-brief
Read the articles dude. They clearly say that the 12 year or decade that you are talking about isn't when the world is going to end, it's when the positive feedback loops will get so bad that it will be damn near impossible to fix. As the earth continues to warm up we lose that pretty white snow and ice that reflects solar energy back into space. As the greenhouse gasses become more effective at capturing that heat and white high albedo surfaces are replaced with blue water and brown dirt the earth warms up a little more, and melts a little more ice. Then more dark surfaces capture more heat and it gets hotter and hotter and the cycle runs away. If you're a farmer in the south that lack of local rainfall may destroy your livelihood. If you're a rancher further north that may mean you get better growing seasons and more rain and help you. If you own waterfront property that may ruin you. You can still live in most places, it will just require massive economic adaptations that some people may or may not be able to adapt to. If you're in a poor country mostly like the Maldives or Bangladesh you're pretty much f'ed and it's a safe bet that will still impact our life in the US, but that's another topic for another day but the Joint Chiefs of Staff put out some interesting reading about climate change and the possible impact to our national defense strategy.

I would love to post more, but honestly if you trust the talking heads at fox news and the industry lobbyists getting paid to lie instead of the scientists at NASA and the other 97% of scientists who have reached a consensus then it's clear no amount of facts or logic will make a difference. If you can come up with a study that proves climate change is not occurring it would be the biggest scientific achievement of the century, you would win nobel prizes and millions of dollars in grants. So if you can do it great, but if all the numbers point towards corresponding evidence like warmer temperatures, less snowpack, sea level rise, ocean acidification etc you need to take a look at the distinct possibility that you are wrong. It's great to see the cognitive dissonance as people put faith in medical science, chemistry, material science and engineering, mathematics, statistics and everything else under the sun. But when it comes to climate and understanding that people and their politics can have an impact on the environment suddenly it's all junk.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Thanks for the article jeepman, I'm still wading through it but it seems the story seems to be more about garbage and comfortable empty buildings bringing bears in like raccoons or coyotes than climate change, so maybe it's good news? The biggest source of that study still hasn't been submitted for peer review so it will be interesting to see how that shakes out. One nice thing about biologists are that they love talking about their papers and they are almost always happy respond to emails about them.

To take this back to the fishing I know a lot of the top fishermen where I grew up with were great buddies with fisheries biologists, and they were constantly talking about behavioral studies to dial in where the next world record walleye or 15 foot sturgeon would be hanging out at. I'm sure there are plenty of good sources out there if you're willing to trust to those pesky scientists!
bluescholar is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 09:41 AM
  #37  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,947
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
Read the articles dude. They clearly say that the 12 year or decade that you are talking about isn't when the world is going to end, !
Read my post again, told you it was said by a DEMOCRAT LAWMAKER. Here is a link to USA today about it, and she is talking for you. She is putting bills in play that effect ever US citizen is a hugely negative way because she, like you have been lied too.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rm/2642481002/


tend to spout a lot of bullshit without fully comprehending what other people tell you that might not align with what you think you know. The "97% consensus" is a lie, you have been lied to, over and over again. Science by consensus is called politics. Climate changing is the norm, climate never stays the same. Small warming and cooling trends should be expected because we are in an interglacial period. The fact you and others think the climate should stay the same, or even worst you think it should be cooling is sad. Water vapor is the driving factor in the greenhouse effect, and mankind does not make a measurable difference in it. The gloom and doom about manmade CO2 is pure Bullshit, same people are worrying about cow farts.

Last edited by Jeepman; 02-14-2019 at 10:13 AM.
Jeepman is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 10:25 AM
  #38  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 213
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
I would love to post more, but honestly if you trust the talking heads at fox news and the industry lobbyists getting paid to lie instead of the scientists at NASA and the other 97% of scientists who have reached a consensus then it's clear no amount of facts or logic will make a difference. If you can come up with a study that proves climate change is not occurring it would be the biggest scientific achievement of the century, you would win nobel prizes and millions of dollars in grants.
Bluescholar once again posting out of his EDF-expanded sphincter. Want studies, data and a NASA scientist debunking the hoax, go to Roy Spencer, PhD

In 1491 99% of the scientists reached consensus the Earth was flat.
Redbeans likes this.
trarmer007 is offline  
Old 02-14-2019, 12:54 PM
  #39  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dauphin Island,Al.
Posts: 1,707
Default

Originally Posted by trarmer007 View Post
Bluescholar once again posting out of his EDF-expanded sphincter. Want studies, data and a NASA scientist debunking the hoax, go to Roy Spencer, PhD

In 1491 99% of the scientists reached consensus the Earth was flat.
It IS flat when I go fishing!!!
dryhydro is offline  
Old 02-16-2019, 02:18 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dauphin Island, Alabama
Posts: 524
Default

Originally Posted by bluescholar View Post
.....To take this back to the fishing I know a lot of the top fishermen where I grew up with were great buddies with fisheries biologists, and they were constantly talking about behavioral studies to dial in where the next world record walleye or 15 foot sturgeon would be hanging out at. I'm sure there are plenty of good sources out there if you're willing to trust to those pesky scientists!
It's statements like this that makes it hard for me to like Yankees.
WoahBuck and Redbeans like this.
SimpleMan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread