jeb

A fraud? Odd term to use. I don't think anyone has said that. Only that the FACT that 114 of the 117 models are wrong shows that this branch of science knows far less about the climate than it would like us to believe. Even your data shows the trend of warming has stopped. Certainly far too little solid science here to be "investing" trillions of dollars in to keep the sky from falling. That's one way to spin it, if you ignore the fact that 97+% of the models have been wrong. And the current trend, to use your word, is NOT warming. My models?! They sure as heck aren't mine. I used to build data models for business applications. Basically, you're asking a computer to predict the future for you. That works in things like engineering because they are able to run verifiable, repeatable tests to extrapolate the algorithms. And it works sometimes in other businesses, like business intelligence. But in an almost purely theoretical scenario like climate, the results were very predictable. In the real world, if modeling proved wrong 97% of the time, it would be a total failure. In climate science, it's a "Oh look over here, I'll pull a bunny ouf of my hat" time. There is no "current warming trend" to reverse. The term greenhouse gases has no stable meaning. Co2 is claimed to be such a gas from the believers, yet even the latest, highly white washed, IPCC release say they've perhaps placed too much emphasis on it's forcings, to wit: "There may also be ... an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing," the new report admits. How many links would you like me to put up refuting the above information? It all smacks very strongly of CYA. Of course the IPCC and all the believers are going to find ways to dismiss or spin the truth. If AGW is not the boogy man they've claimed it to be, there goes a LOT of paychecks. But to the common man, hearing that the temps are not rising and that 97.5% of the models have been way wrong leads to more logical conclusions. I have no doubt they'll eventually adopt some meager pollution control standards. But I'd bet they will never be anywhere close to where the developed world is now, let alone where the AGW zealots want us to be. Well of course they did. That's their business, to convince the masses of this impending doom, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", said the Wizard of Oz. Actually, flooding, hurricanes and tornadoes are down since 1950, according to http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/scientist-tells-senators-global-warming-not-causing-extreme-weather/'>this Colorado professor. I think the reason a lot of people think things are worse is because of the media attention and spinning everything as a AGW event. Well, except for those things that run counter to it's believes. Bad news sells, afterall. It's also interesting that a lot of events have hit bigger population centers the last few years. I always thought over the years how lucky we were that most of the major events missed big population centers. But that was just a matter of chance, really, and that luck was sadly bound to run out sooner or later. Forest fires are largely natural occurances, and they are mostly good for the forest. It's how they renewed before man was ever around. I believe man is making them worse, but not with so called greenhouse gases. But rather with the limiting of logging and policy in many parks and forests of not clearing dead wood, having controlled burns, etc. You build a tinderbox, and it's going to burn sooner or later. I am sorry to hear about the damage to your state, though. Some truely epic flooding that has impacted a lot of peoples lives. Sad event. Please detail what these "practical steps" are and, more importantly, exactly how they're going to help. I mean quantify it, with real data. All I ever hear is the fuzzy stuff. "Oh, well, if we all ride our bicycles once a week instead of take the car, it will all be okay.".Not that kind of problem if you believe the alarmist.

QuillBack did catch a nice one in about 35', and lost one he thinks was even bigger from the same spot.

I did swim a twin tail grub around a bit, but not until mid-morning, I'd guess. Never got a bite on it, but maybe it needs to be fished earlier.

Out of the blue? WTH? That was pure skill. Fun day out on TR again. But sure looking forward to when the water starts cooling down.

Very true. And some are stiffer, some have more line memory, some have more stretch, etc. Just like mono or braid, you need to find the one that suits YOUR needs best. The advantages to Fluro (much less visable to the fish, less stretch and better feel) out weigh any disadvantages for me.

You mean like this? : http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/'>114 of 117 climate models wrong Here's a direct link to the new study: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf'>Direct link And I'm still waiting for the link to the at least 10 year old model that predicted the temps would be flat or even decline over the last 10 years or more that backs up your earlier assertions. China is the biggest emiiter. Spinning it on a per capita basis does not change the fact that China will only produce more if we produce less, since that's where most of the carbon emitting companies/jobs/processes move to when it gets too expensive for them in the USA. I would assume some of that transfer of carbon emissions is figured into the USA per capita use. But there again, nothing is proven. There is still no solid evidence that CO2, a gas that only makes up .04% of our atomsphere (yeah, you read that right), is impacting the climate at all. Look at the article I just posted in. Those folks need to go back to the drawing board! And that's cool, science works that way. But to go freaking out over this stuff when it's so demonstrably incorrect is lunacy. IMO, and all. LOL! I look at the study above to show that we all should be "hold overs". Do you really think that's even close to the same thing here? Really? True, it will be shown over and over again that it's impossible to model the climate or predict the future weather. There will be no hiding that as these models continue to be wrong. If they become accurate, they won't scare anyone. Can't have that! I pray we continue to have the common sense politically to not go driving our country further off the rails and into ever more debt tilting at these imagined windmills. The biggest problem facing our country is the rapidly rising debt levels. That will, for a fact, harm ours and our children's future. And that is something we can actually do something about.

EARLY morning is the thing right now, at least that's what I've been finding. Once the sun hits the water, they go deeper and are hard to get to bite.

Wow, took a long time for this response! That's no surprise, given your viewpoint on this subject. My post had nothing to do with surrendering. I was just asking what the folks that believe in this religion are willing to give up to "fix" it. Good for you! At least you're trying to walk the walk a little. Given the fact that even the Kyoto agreement was predicted to have almost no impact, small steps like you list are not likely to have any impact at all. But at least you're putting your effort where your believes are. Congrats on that! I'd wager very, very, very few alarmists are willing to make any real sacrifices to combat this chicken little scenario, though. Yes, but global temps were steady, and possibly even falling, during that decade. Show me a "consensus" model that showed the temps would do that. I mean one from 10 years ago or more. Only to the believers and alarmists. That's where the money is, I'll give you that.

Thanks for posting the results Jeff. Go Stacey!

Very well said, and I'm in complete agreement with you. It ticks me off that people play with MY life and well being in this manner. Turn your lights on and leave them on at night. On these highly trafficked lakes, you're just asking for trouble by not running them.

Ouch. I have a couple of pairs of costly prescription sunglasses, and it would hurt to loose them. I use the Cablz on mine. http://www.cablz.com/

Need to leave something for you to figure out! ;-) It was sure a good morning on TR for this time of year. Quillback caught several really nice fish in the 2.5-3lb range. I had a couple over 2. Really fat, healthy fish.

Spring time, too. I've had some REALLY good days on Beaver doing that.

My son recently went old school to the old clam shell razors with the single blade in them. Seems it's a bit of a trend these days. I think the Yeti style coolers are great, but really overkill for a day of fishing. Just get a decent cooler with a tight fitting, insulated lid and you'll be good to go. Now, if you're taking a canoe trip through the BWCA for a week, hell yes, get a Yeti and keep it closed as much as you can. And type of ice does matter. I've done a ton of camping over the years and the hotel type ice is the worst. Melts fast. I usually use a mix of block ice (usually frozen gallon jugs of water from our chest freezer) and ice maker ice (which I bag up and store in bulk in the freezer before a trip). If it's going to be several days, I'll even fill my best cooler up only with ice (Okay, a few beers on the bottom) to distribute to the other cooler(s) as they need it.

It's an 08 we bought new in 09. Had them switch out the 2 stroke for a 4 stroke. 460 hours on it now, 99% of which is bass fishing. So I don't use it as a ski boat often, but it's still nice to have the versatility. Been a great boat so far. The towel drying over the windshield is not attractive, though!

I did have one bass spit up a shad while I was bringing it in. It was a normal, 3" shad, not the guppy size we saw so many schools of. Very spotty fishing, as Jeff said. Odd thing with some spots yesterday. I'd see the classic "spagehetti" picture of active fish over brush piles, etc and we'd not get bit on the classic summer stuff we normally catch them. That's usually almost a guaranteed few fish when I see that kind of thing. But I've only been back on Beaver a couple of weeks after spending the summer fishing in Wisc, so still trying to figure them out, I guess. Fishing was overall much better than our trip to the dam area last week. Many more bites and lots more active fish in the mid-lake area.

Here's a picture of part of our current herd. Buck is in the middle. Like I said, nothing special there.

I don't really study deer much, but it is funny how the northern deer are bigger than the southern ones, by and large. I'd think it'd be like fish where the milder weather would allow them to get bigger. I lived in MN for 35 years before moving here and just spent 2 months in Wisc, and the deer up there are much bigger body wise. Antler mass is usually bigger on the nice bucks, too. Here in Ark, we have a herd around our house all year as my wife spends a lot of our money feeding them via the electric deer feeder and hand spreading feed. Up to 28 at a time this summer. I try to get her to quit for the summer, but it's no use. I do see the occasional nice buck, but usually it's only during the rut/hunting season. We have a decent 6 pointer in the current herd, but nothing to write home about. Anyway, thanks for the report, Quillback. Sorry the fishing wasn't a little better.

I've been using them for a few years now. I've always bought Mustangs because they seem to have the best rep, by far, for not inflating except when they're suppose to. I wear them 100% of the time I'm out fishing. But that's an auto-inflate. For a manual only, I'd think any of the ones from Cabela's, Bass Pro, etc would work fine.

And another today. Man, the lake is being pretty deadly right now. http://5newsonline.com/2013/08/20/drowning-at-beaver-lake-early-tuesday-night/

Whichever one breaks first is the MB.

I have a load of the MB 110's, probably 25 or more. I've caught some fish on them, but don't find them to be anything special. The hooks are frail, the bills and tails break off, and they don't catch as many fish for me as other baits like the McStick and the Lucky Strike STX (dead ringer for the MB110, only like $7 per, but catch more fish, for whatever reason). Rare I even tie on one of my 110's anymore as I prefer the others to them. I also have the magnum MB 110, and have yet to catch a fish on it on TR or Beaver. In my experience, MB baits are over rated and over priced. But I'm sure the mental part of the game/confidence is a big factor in this area, too. I just don't have any confidence in them.

Had a fun day on the water and some good fishing for this time of year. Temps where nice and not much traffic for the Rock. Caught a gar on my c-rig in the morning, too. First time for that. I'd guess he was close to 3'.

Just got home from spending the summer fishing Wisc. Lake is sure up compared to most summers. Wife had been telling me about the huge rains down here, even got almost 5" of it in the gauge just a few days ago here in the PC area. Amazing numbers for this area in the summer!

Agreed. I think NG is a FAR better solution than any of the hugely non-profitable "green" sources. But you're not only fighing the oil/gas industry, you're also fighting the echo-freaks. They won't hear of a source of energy that burns fossil fuels. They'd rather "go for broke" and run our economy into even worse conditions than give up the "dream". Common sense has no place in those realms. It's all about what if's and wouldn't be great's and let's force them to do it, no matter what the cost's. No mention of what makes the most economic sense.