smudger
-
Posts
145 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by smudger
-
-
Cory,
Sorry, I should have said, "pre-determined" results - i.e. confirming. I don't think anyone would even suggest there is no bias in "scientific research". Don't you think "pal" review is commonplace. Especially when "theory" is being postulated and reviewed.
Phone
Yes and heres a good example of pal review and confirmation bias
“… Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones 8/7/2004
-
My question wasn’t rhetorical, I have really wondered what the police would be looking for at a fishing contest? Would it be lures and live fish?
I thought that this thread might develop, so I have left it a couple of days, but it has been nagging away at the back of my mind, ‘why are so many people apparently pleased at the prospect of the police ‘randomly searching’ then while out fishing? I have nothing to hide, but wouldn’t really want to be the subject of police interference while out engaging in what is really recreation.
So far as I understand it, in Scotland the police can only search a person if they have reasonable grounds for suspicion. Fir example, they can search you if they reasonably suspect that you are in possession of an offensive weapon, stolen property, (alcohol if you are at certain major sports events or on public transport going to the event), after an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, if you have about you of £1,000 or more and that this is the result of criminal activity, and/or fireworks that you intend to use anti-socially.
Police can search you under Section 44 (anti terrorism) whether of not they have grounds for suspicion, in places where s44 searches have been authorised. Or they can also search you for a weapon under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act,( but only in places where this power has been authorised). Section 60 may be imposed where police believe serious violence may occur.
How does this fit in with the Rozzers coming to the pike event?
Is the money from the event going towards paying the police overtime?
Please tell me the whole thing is a 'wind up' and I have mised that.
Would think the police are there to back up the bailiffs if the bailiffs are EA (happens on the Thames alot) for the bailiffs protection, otherwise???may be the water owner might have asked for them to be present whilst licence checks go on??
-
Resigned because it was peer reviewed not pal reviewed, by the small cliche of climate scienctists that review each other papers
As for sceince not being very well paid???Copy and Pasted from wuwt
Heres jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt pay rates for 2010
Hansen is ES 00 and made $158,832 in FY 2010. Gavin Schmidt is GS 15 and made $136,791 in FY 2010.
Plus Hansens side earning include this
Public financial disclosures and other documents reveal that he has received at least $1.2 million in the past four years, more than doubling his taxpayer-financed salary.
nice if you can get it
-
not sure i deny "global warming" as bunkam but i do not see the evidence its down only to man kind and its use of oil which the governments ,industry and anyone else who can benefit in some way insist it is.
generally the planet and its climate is cyclic its either going to warm up or its on the way back down to a bit of cooling and its always been like it and it will be like it probably for the time the earth exists.
man certainly isnt helping ,cutting down huge tracts of forest that lock up CO2 and generally over breeding using up the rest for agriculture to feed itself.
now i dont really worry myself i wont be round long and my kids and grand kids are lucky enough to exist i a temperate country where even a 5 degree temp hike wont be so bad .If ofcourse the gulf stream stops (more fear generation to extract money) then we would stay exactly as we are today as the gulf stream bumps our temperature by about the same
The great thing is when the oil runs out its suggested the planet could only support 500 million people ,so the unfortunate will perish most probably as nature intended ,then when man is back once more to a pre industrial revolution number the survivors can easily see it wasnt down to man in the first place and those taxes ,laws and rules and the general shenanigans the rulers of the time got up to was for their benefit not the world as a planet or its inhabitants.
the planet itself wont even notice the span of mankind and its failings we are a tiny speck of life that lived and been wiped out like countless species before us even for millions of years before oil existed as oil and far further back ,when mother nature shrugs off a 80% loss of all life on the planet and recovers without mans help it will again
good post Chesters1,
I am with the cyclic thought too.
-
If the hat fits wear it! I am skeptical of your skepticism. I expect you to get educated and not just stick your fingers in your ears and say "BLAH, BALAH, BLAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU" just because you don't like the message. I think the ads are stupid, although I can think of a few creationists (evolution deniers) that I wish I could do that to.
So it ok for warmist's to call sceptics names but not vice versa,very child like and unscience like.
And you can tell from less than half a dozen posts that i am uneducated,seems you are the one with their fingers in their ears, you've not adressed one question i've put to you yet.you come across like the climate scientists Mann, Trenberth,Jones etc i know best mentality,see i can do the ad hom attack as well.As for my sceptical outlook well lets just say you've more than reinforced it with your petty reply
i won't waste my time replying to you anymore, key board know it alls get very boring after a short time
-
No my friend. The first sentence from Goddards post is a logical fallacy. The term "warmist" is being used in a derogatory fashion and is what amounts to an ad hominen attack that is an attack againt the arguer and not against the argument or "poisoning the well". Two fallacies in the first sentence from a site that purports to do"Real Science" is a bit poor to say the least.
Another thing that irks me slightly is that this Goddard chap has the gall to put a quote from Richard Feynman on his masthead. Richard Feynman is a hero of mine someone that I look up to, someone that I take inspiration from. What Mr Feynman meant when he said "Science is belief in the ignorance of experts" was that science is not about accepting a claim based on faith, or because it is the word of some famous professor,rather we should always go where the evidence leads, that experts should be treated skeptically, should be challenged and questioned. The ordinary workings of science challenges the claims of experts every single day. It's what we call peer review.
Belief in the ignorance of experts isn't the same as belief in the expertise of the ignorant.
No serious climatologist doubts that the earth is warming, you don't even need to be a climatologist to work that out, any 16 year old schoolboy from 1970s with an "O" level in physics could work out that the mean temperature of the earth is getting warmer, so I'll stick with the CSL graph. It shows a distinct trend showing that that global sea levels are rising and the data has not been "normalised" by some random "Joe Public" who I have never heard of.
What about the term "denier" with all it connotations thrown at sceptical person's,do you expect people to suit back and take it lying down.Ever seen the 10.10 video...bit more than a ad hominen wouldn't you say.
-
Well i was a shark this afternoon.......Swimming around in the foam party we decided to have in one of the streets in my village.
(we are "in fiestas")
I noticed the particularly nice prey in the pic....but i was afraid of being eaten alive................
Huba Huba.
talking of being eaten alive,her bikini bottom is suffering a delightfull fate by the look of that picture
-
Depends what you mean by 'ordinary Joe Public'. I'm an IT guy with a passion for all things technical scientific. Science is my big hobby after fishing. I am a keen amateur astronomer (there are quite a few on here) and also have a interest in for biology and evolutionary developmentology (evo-devo), but alas I have no formal scientific qualifications.
Ah, so the graphs from Goddards blog could be right, and just because he allows some one to write
a logical fallacy he's wrong, not to be trusted.
You've commented that you're more inclined to trust CSL site, what was your conclusion on the sea level data provided by them
Rising or falling
Is it true that cows are from the same evolutionary familie as whales??
-
So you are just an ordinary Joe Public,no academic/scientific background.
-
be carefull on what part of the beach you venture on to, theres a nudist part to budleigh beach with goings-on that can't be mentioned on here in one particular part of it
-
am not doing the lower size limit on this session budgie just to it been the first organised piking day at the fishery! so just doing it on a catch and realise policy for this one, if all goes well then i'm hoping for it to become a regular outing each week, then id bring in the lower size limit!
just got a small trophy for the biggest fish today aswell.
the water is 42 acres in size and the deepest point is just under 40feet!
was caught on a perch deadbait, just off the bottom mate.
well theyll be two baliffs on the day and weve got two policemen that come up regularly for checks, ive contacted them direct and they said they would be up doing random searches etc on the day!
well ive been told if the session is a sucess, with the winter months closing in i could get maby 2 or 3 days a week, when the trout guys are on holiday
good on yer,a well run day out,good luck
-
So I am mean to take the word of someone who's first sentence is a logical fallacy? WTF is "Steven Goddard" anyway? I looked to see if I could see a bio or a CV but didn't find one.
as far as i can tell he's he person, do they have to have a bio or cv
and you're academic, you tell me if he's right in what he's posted (graph wise)
-
How do you know that? Widely accepted by whom?
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kit...5currents1.html
-
-
would take any from the IPCC with a large pinch of salt, beside's sea levels have falling the last couple of years
-
No Phone, the "Gulf Stream influence" or North Atlantic Drift as it's more acurate to call it is here now. If we get global warming (a cyclical event) the melting polar ice cap will displace it and the UK will have very cold weather.....as do other countries at our latitude. It's the N.A.D. that keeps us temperate.
I go on forums where saying such a thing would get you hung......heretic
It is now widely accepted that NAD would/might still influence the Uk if the sinking to the north of the denser cold water stopped, as the NAD is mostly wind driven and the Coriolis Effect (Earths Rotation) would still push the warmer water west/north west
-
Seems as if people have different opinions of unhooking mats.I have made my postion clear of how i feel and won't be passing any more comment on it, good luck and good fishing to all.
-
Smudger
I don't really want to get embroiled in an argument over unhooking mats but one of the things you said intrigued me.
You said that you always wash the slime off the unhooking mat after use. I thought that the stated point of the mat was to avoid removing slime from the fish. If not, what is the difference between the mat and any other soft (ish) surface, like grass for instance.
Its impossible to not remove any slime from a fish, unless you unhook in the water,which as you should know is not alway practical or posible depending on the venue fished, high banks etc.
My local canal has low banks where i can unhook in the water and do not need a mat or a landing net,
It also has high banks where i can not get easy acces to the fish, so i use a landing net and mat.Plus my Association states i have to carry a mat and other rules for pike fishing be it deadbaiting or on the lure, it is not my wish to have to appear in front of the commitee or be labelled a uncaring lure/pike angler, we have enough problems with EEs taking fish for the pot(not just pike) i do not wish to add to a declining pike population by returning fish covered in dirt etc so i try to my bit, not just for me but for future generations of anglers......others it seems are somewhat more self centered.
-
No I havn't forgotten anything which I have posted, nor am I 'flip flopping about', I have a good idea what the EA are about when it comes to fisheries, I said you have failed to understad what the EA are supposed to do and i stick by that wholeheartedly. Thats not a contradiction, quite the opposite, their role is not to go about enforcing laws and rules which do not exist as you seen to think they should or wish they would. They have their work cut out quite enough dealing with legislation which does exist.
I don't fish for free...but not all waters are under the control of 'clubs'...(there you go again banging on about clubs!) where on earth do you conjure these things up from? we pay the nation through the park to fish their waters, we pay the town council to fish their waters...it's not a difficult concept to grasp.
The 'future generations and welfare of fish' is a melodramatic statement, for you havn't brought any evidence to show my practice is harmful to fish. I know for certain the past generations treated their fish in a wholly different way to the way we do now.
The boat landing at my local lake in the 60s had a gibbet upon which to hang caught pike, some were taken as greenhouse manure, gaffs were widely used. And gags were for those who cared about welfare. by the 70s there was a movement to deal with pike in a better way, and we were chastised for holding fish vertically, (the standard way we see them being held now) as it was 'un natural for a pike which spends it's lifetime in the horizontal position to be held that way, then we were told not to but them in keepnets then not to use barbed hooks...some one in here said that for them the ultimate priority was fish welfare, well I challenge that strongly, if one is truly concerned with the fish's welfare above all else then cease from angling altogether, for that is the only way one can be truly sure of not harming them. I may not always carry an unhooking mat but I always carry a priest, believeing, and experience has shown it the only humane way to proceed.
In summary, you tried to argue that it is the law that anglers must carry a mat, you have failed, its isn't. Now you seem to be branching out, discrediting my style with rudeness, 'flip flopping' grasping fore some credibility which is not forthcoming.
I should ask at this point your age, I had a similar debate in another forum a while ago and it turned out that the other party was a child, it sounded alot like this.
I understand that all waters are not under the control of clubs,i also understand that some, if not all (i stand to be corrected )the lake district lakes and some tarns are free fishing, seeing that you state you fish "some " of these lake and tarns i took it you fished for free, as you do not belong to any clubs or Associations
had you pointed this out we could avoided most of the posts we've posted,
i've never argued that its laws to carry a unhooking mat,only if and if you belonged to a club/association than more often than not you have to have a unhooking mat.The EA licence has local byelaws and national byelaws which should also be adhered to.
The 'future generations and welfare of fish' is a melodramatic statement, for you havn't brought any evidence to show my practice is harmful to fish. I know for certain the past generations treated their fish in a wholly different way to the way we do now.
By calling the "future generations and welfare of fish" statement melodramatic i think that is enough evidence.That is the reason rules and regulations were put in place by club/associations,and the EA
do you think the pike population would still be in the state it is today if killed every pike we all caught
like they did in the 60s 70s,that why gaffs were outlawed and gags are frowned upon now.You seem to building your case on the fact that you do not want to carry a unhooking mat,just because you find it inconvienant whilst shore fishing (unless static deadbaiting)if you think you should for deadbaiting, why not for stalking/lure fishing form the shore, fishing for the same fish, different method, your argument is some what flawed wouldn't you say??
"I always carry a priest, believeing, and experience has shown it the only humane way to proceed"
Could you elaborate on the above statement, are you now saying that you dispatch every pike caught??why carry a priest?
Child no, 46
-
On the contrary, I'm saying that there are aspects of the management of ALL waters which the EA are responsible for. I worked for them, when it was the 'NRA', so I am well aware of the 'juristriction' we had. There is no requirement for me by law to carry a mat when mobile fishing, and you have not brought any evidence to the table to say that there is.
Clubs/ Angling Associations...you are still hanging grimly onto that notion...I dont belong to either. I pay one club to fish on one of their waters (I already stated this) I havn't fished another 'clubs' water at all as far as I can honestly remember, nor an 'Angling association's'.
It's the national park, town council's or day tickets.
You are persisting when you know you are wrong.
hang on aminute your saying this
Your statement 'come under the EA's governance' just shows that you have failed to take the time to find out just what the EA's function is in regard to all the country's waters.
then the next you come out with this
'im saying that there are aspects of the management of ALL waters which the EA are responsible for.
i am lost, and i do not i am wrong, that is what the debate is about, trouble is your flip floping around so much you seem to forgot what you've posted..or am i wrong about that as well
you fish free waters not owned by club/'Angling association's............. lucky you
Do you think you owe to future generations of anglers to look after the welfare of fish
could go on for a fair while like this
-
You can't seem to see outside of what you know, your world. Where did you get this obsession with 'clubs'? (your begining to sound like a stuck record). The nation owns most of the waters I fish and are controlled by the National Park (lake district), I'm a season ticket holder and have been for years which is why I can say without fear of (your, or anyone else's) contradiction that it says nothing whatsoever about my having to wander around with a mat, it doesn't even say I have to use one at all. As stated, I choose to when static fishing and I use one on my boat.
The reason I asked you if you had seen a fishing licence is that you introduced the document to help prove your case, however that too says nothing about mats. Your statement 'come under the EA's governance' just shows that you have failed to take the time to find out just what the EA's function is in regard to all the country's waters.
So are you saying that the EA has no jurisdiction or control over any thing to with the fishing in waters that you fish?
And sorry when i say clubs that also includes Angling Associations
-
Maybe I'm reading you wrong smudger, but you seem to be implying that unhooking mats are compulsory under EA law. I must have missed this piece of legislation. Could you please provide a link to the relevant ruling?
John.
No i am not implying that its compulsory under EA regulations, i am implying that under most clubs its more often than not compulsory.
-
How may times do I have to say 'I don't have a club'?? (I shall say it again, I am not a member of club) perhaps you only see what you want to see, and ignore anything which intereres with your arguments? Not everyone in in a club, you clearly have difficulty with that concept, anglers are not the homogenous group you seem to wish they would be. I dont have a 'club licence' (there is no such thing anyway, a club may issue a membership card etc, but not a licence even if some are pompus enough to call it that).
I havn't contradicted myself one bit, never mind every post, I dont carry a mat when roving because I am not obliged to do so, on any water which I fish, its not a rule! Nor it it a rule to actually use the net on the one water stated. It's only a rule (yes daftness) to carry one, and that I got directly from the secretary.
As for the EA licence, your submission of that as a variable to support your case makes me think that perhaps you dont fish much at all? You think that it insists or even suggests that I use a mat when mobile fishing on particular waters? Have you even seen an AE licence recently?
Perhaps you just out to wind folk up, and like everyone else has done I should just ignore you? for its like talking to the (Herry Enfield) comedy character as he wlks up and down the water side squeaking 'you dont want to do that!'
No, i am not here to wind any one up,
And yes i have seen the EA licence, this years one has a Perch on it, last years one had a Barbel the year before was also a Perch.Are trying imply that i fish illegally
Some one must own the waters you fish?????if not own/run by a club they more than likely come under the EA's governace
Perhaps you have not aqainted yourself with the fisheries rules or maybe never gave a thought that they might actaully have some!
As for comment of the Enfield character...oh very droll,
-
Phone
my apologies,i took it that the "steward" remark was a jibe.as for mat will have to agree to disagree.
fish well and in peace
Lure Fishing
in Coarse Fishing
Posted
Would up your braid strength 14lb is not enough to go chucking 50grm lure around on maybe 35lb
Water clarity, wouldn't worry to much about it to much if pike are around they will have a go at a lure vibration plays a big part in lure fishing you will/can catch in very coloured water