homersapien

Archaic system.  It should have been changed long ago.

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ps the current battle lines festered years before Trump.

 https://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion

Good Grief:

Newt Gingrich warns the U.S. is becoming a secular country, which would be a "nightmare." Rick Santorum says there's a clash between "man's laws and God's laws." And in a campaign ad, Rick Perry decried what he called "Obama's war on religion," saying there is "something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly ... pray in school."

"holy venom" 

Well - aside from establishing a program to address the problems associated with AGW - Auburn University has apparently officially endorsed the position that AGW as being real and it is caused by excess CO2:

"In 2010, Auburn committed to reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 when we signed the President's Climate Commitment, resulting in the creation of the Climate Action Plan. Our next step in this journey is to wean ourselves off fossil fuels as much as possible and lean into clean electricity."

https://sustain.auburn.edu/air-climate-auburn-universitys-sustainability-report/

A modern political "influencer" would be abortion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob-gyn-shortage-roe-v-wade-abortion-bans/

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, in other words, any university can start a program to research an issue based on theory. If they so choose to, and the government is funding it at nearly 100%, what's wrong with doing it? In fact, business startups do the same thing all the time. If a university were approached about starting such a program, and promised government funding for the research, should they decline? What's the angle there? It's a business. The end goal is making money, whether they are successful or not. 

None of this means the university is unethical. It means the science actually isn't "settled". Nothing wrong with researching it, and absolutely nothing wrong with finding solutions to other issues along they that they weren't actually looking for. Happens all the time. Perhaps in the process, they develop more drought or cold resistant foods or better irrigation methods, or cheaper methods to manufacture solar panels, etc...

I submit that it would be unethical for the leadership at the University undertook it for the grant money if they didn't believe the topic presented problems that were legitimate and real.

On a practical level, they couldn't afford it because of the image/PR fall out.

A (hypothetical) example would be projects on "creationism".  No doubt there's money available to fund such a "research" topic if Auburn were willing to accept it.

54 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Birmingham missing out/passing on Delta in the 50s was devastating.  

I don't really know, but I've read the civil rights movement had a lot to do with that.  Birmingham was a citadel of "Jim Crow".

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Didn’t drop by JJ’s frat house did you?

Nope.  But one would think I might have heard a rumor. 

I mean, I knew the frat houses where you could buy pot.

JohnnyAU - and I cringe to type the "AU" - operates on the  "Jewish Space Laser" level. 

14 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

How dare a university start a program that is almost 100% funded by government entities! How dare they take a share of the trillions of $$! The fools! LOL If the don't start the program, they don't get the money. If they do, they do. It's pretty simple. Like most humans, they like paychecks too. 

In other words, you think Auburn is participating in the hoax for profit.

You really don't think much of the University, do you?  Which programs in  the department do you think are a waste/scam?

Like I said, you present a bad look for an Auburn grad.  Embarrassing.

(You also don't understand how basic research is accomplished in our country.)

18 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Homer, i accepted long ago that you’re the high priest of science on this site. I’m just plodding along talking a good game.

Not at all. 

I am just vocal about the value of science - or more specifically - the scientific method.  It is the only way we learn about the universe, as it has proven.

If that makes me a "priest" for science, I am certainly not alone.  Just one of millions and millions.

58 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The base premise is that we’re unnaturally releasing massive amounts of carbon that was created 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous period (btw when that much carbon was initially pulled out of the atmosphere to create oil/coal it caused a huge planetary temp drop/mass extinction). Yin meets Yang. Net net were currently terraforming the planets climate.

That's a brilliantly concise summary.  Kudos! 

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

1) The problem of a changing climate has always been and always will be there. The issue now is the claiming the driver of such a nonlinear, chaotic, complex system is a trace gas without proof.

 

That would be step 0:  There is no problem.

54 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

By torture you mean average behavior at a football season frat party?

I don't recall water-boarding.  Even for pledges.

4 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Stalin is famous for saying  "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the vote.   It now has it's New York corollary: The trial is over after jury selection.  We are about to see it again in New York. What's sad is to see leftists gloating over the death of a once admired judicial system.

 

Spoken like a true cultist.

18 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

What a load of sanctimonious BS. 

Take it up with Auburn University.  Tell'em they're getting scammed by a hoax.

https://chess.auburn.edu/

International Center for Climate and Global Change Research

4 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

  ·

A piece of writing that so perfectly and succinctly predicted the future. It proves there is clairvoyance in art. Heller wrote this in the late 1950’s. It was published in 1961.

“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.”

Joseph Heller, Catch-22

That could be Trump's epitaph.  No doubt it would fit on his tombstone.

13 hours ago, autigeremt said:

And a separation of the nation, in my opinion. 

Guess your oath expired when you left the service?

13 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Not at the expense of the people you are trying to “save”. 

  Don't understand your point.

Everyone is affected by climate change, some (the poor) worse than others. The effort to mitigate it will be to everyone's benefit.

15 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

We’re not going to reverse extreme climate change. It’s going to change regardless of what we do. We just need to be good stewards of the environment and make the right choices for everyone. 

Probably correct. 

But the immediate challenge is to slow the rate of change, which will (hopefully) allow us to stop it at a tolerable level - somewhere below "extreme."

16 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Comparing alternative energy (how it’s made) with something like nuclear power. The byproducts of both are waste and disposal. Lithium mining is horrible to the surrounding environment and there’s a lot of waste at the end of its toxic life. That’s just one example (landfills full of turbine blades, used up solar panels, etc.).

I understand the negatives.  My point is those are not as bad as extreme climate change, which is worse.  They can be addressed, just as we have mitigated specific pollution problems in the past.

16 hours ago, autigeremt said:

It probably wouldn’t get past SCOTUS. 

Yep.  The current SCOTUS is a major problem.

It will take generations for us to recover.

21 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nothing really. Climate changes all the time whether we fret about it or not. Is that what you want? No change? No change in climate would be completely irrational. Like most of your posts.

 

You bet.  There's also been 5 mass extinction events on earth.

"The climate has always been changing. But for various reasons, the current change that we're experiencing now is particularly alarming, and that is because in the history of human civilization, the climate has never changed this rapidly. And that's really what concerns scientists. It's not the fact that there is change, but it's the speed of that change."

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676198899/climate-scientist-says-argument-the-climate-is-always-changing-is-wrong

17 hours ago, Leftfield said:

 

Ya know....it's kind of inconceivable that three college graduates can read for 20 pages and learn absolutely nothing.

 

Very bad look for Auburn University.     Sad.