I wonder if this is related (unofficially of course) to apple's recent aggressive move over third party lightning (apples current charge/data port) cables.
If you don't mind my asking, could you point me to which Duplin wine you like? I live in NC and have tried just a few local wines (I tried some kind of uber sweet muscadine years ago). Thus far, I haven't found anything that jumped out at me.
I think that's -- without a doubt -- a big part (IMHO anyone who denies that evolution exists should be banned from politics). I think it would be wise to consider wider trends in academia as well, however, amongst both public and private institutions.
I'm not insinuating anything, I've said it several times!
I don't believe that many climate scientists deliberately falsify data. I'm sure there are some because there are people in every field that falsify data. I do believe that when funding is dependent on grants, and grants are highly available for AGW research topics, that researchers have a completely rational motivation to find AGW in places where there is perhaps ambiguity. I'm surprised this is a controversial statement. If you work in academia, finagling to get grants is just part of life. Five years ago just about every grant request in certain branches of physics and chemistry were modified to include something about "biosensors" or "chemical sensors" because there was a huge amount of funding available for homeland security projects. That's just what goes in academia--it is what it is.
Regardless of all of this, I absolutely stand by my statement that "97% of climatologists agree," as sourced in Cook et al., is totally false.
When I was an undergrad, the Republican group at my school pulled every faculty member's political affiliation. History, Art History, Women's Studies, African American Studies, sociology, anthropology, etc, had between them a large number of faculty (100, give or take) and not one Republican--all Democrats. Engineering, computer science, math, etc were spit more much closer, and in the economics department, there were more Republicans still. Why? Ideology obviously has a great deal to do with what people choose to work on. Correlation or causation? I know what I believe.
I have no doubt that most climate scientists do believe in AGW (hesitation over the 97% claim notwithstanding). I believe there are many reasons for this.
The good news is, we should no for sure within say, 10 years. If the models are right, we should see a statistically significant change by then. If the models are wrong...? Until then (and even then, unfortunately), factions will no doubt keep arguing.
You don't have to be rude to have a discussion. If you're going to avoid any discussion of facts and substance and stick with personal attacks though, I suppose it helps. No reason to perpetuate mere mean-spiritedness.
Yeah. Who cares if cities drown, countries disappear under the ocean, and Africa starves if Tropicana can plant some orange groves in Greenland?
Yours is EXACTLY the kind of statement that makes me so uncomfortable. That is such an incredibly hysterical statement. Not even the most extreme estimates of sea rise produce anything like you say within centuries. Africa starve? 10,000 years ago the Sahara was green and wet. Maybe it will be again. There's so much uncertainty, we really, really don't know.
Republican doves were driven out of the party by 2003. And Democrats have shown their propensity for hackery since they've defended actions from their Dear Leader that would have had them in the streets if it was Bush doing the same things for the same reasons.
The Tea Party and libertarian strands of conservatism have made more traditional (paleocon if you will) noninterference conservatism more resurgent than it's been in years. The present Republican dove (nee neocon) can make some excuse by saying that "we learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan."
What the heck excuse do the Democrats have? "We did such a bang up job in Afghanistan and Iraq (plus our limited interference in Libya) that we thought we ought to help out in Syria as well! Never mind the hundred thousand that have already died, a couple hundred deaths from chemicals weapons is the red line!"
Well no, that's actually not what you accused me of initially, but ok. I think there's a pretty huge difference between the statement that "97% of climatologists agree" and "97.1% of a subset of climate papers that contained a certain set of (in my view potentially biasing) words and in which the authors made some kind of judgment call about AGW posit that humans are responsible for at least some portion of global warming." At this level of disagreement, we're down to a religious wedge issue, so I don't expect us to suddenly come to an agreement, but that's how I see it. I do not believe that mine is an unreasonable statement.
To put it more waggishly (or "partisanly" as you may see fit)--is it a surprise that papers (funded by a government that believes in AGW) discussing anthropogenic global warming believe in anthropogenic global warming?
I generally don't respond to rude ACs, so if you want another response, you can either be less rude or post as non-AC (yes, you can be a rude non-AC:)
Those trees have been there for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Seems they do just fine without people fertilizing them and all that. Those trees can also live over 2,000 years, not just "hundreds".. Hundreds of years is many, many different trees.
Obviously. There are a lot more trees that lives for "hundreds" of years than trees that live for "thousands" of years, however.
What is sad is your assumption that researchers are just as ignorant about plant growth as yourself.
I have very few assumptions, because I know very little! From the little that I know, tree ring growth is NOT a simple issue.
You can accuse me of providing a (in your view, at least!) flawed interpretation, but I copied the detailed numbers right from the paper and put them in post and provided my take on their meaning, so you can't accuse me of not reading them (or "reading into")!
there is no previous warming trend spanning 110 years like we have since the 1900's.
We've never seen warming before over 20 year periods like we see since 1900 [1]
These are pretty amazing claims to make considering that accurate, global instrumental records cover less than the last 100 years!
It's my understanding that most "paleo" records can indicate greater climate shifts, but with nothing like 20 year granularity.
I viewed the BBC page you linked to. It's a perfect example of why I find myself sickeningly torn when it comes to AGW. I'm a big, big believer in protecting lands, reducing pollution, and generally more sustainable living. Like a good 21st century American yuppie I compost my trash and have an organic garden (see, the $65 tomato:-P). However, when I see graphics like the map on the 3rd page, I get irritated! AGW is going to do so much damage--and there's NO potential good? I instantly become--excuse the phrase--skeptical when I see laundry lists of negatives and not even one positive. That just doesn't seem likely.
I find the tree ring cores fascinating, and am sympathetic to the inherent difficulties that paleoclimatologists have to deal with (natural variation being the least of them).
The one thing I've never seen answered about tree ring growth though is how do you separate the temperature signal from:
1) amount of CO2 in atmosphere 2) amount of rainfall 3) amount of sunshine 4) changing nutrient levels in the soil (the soil must change for trees that lives hundreds of years, right?)
I agree with you that it's totally obvious to see "good times" vs "bad times" in tree ring growth, but what exactly makes up good times versus bad times? I would really love to read more, if anybody knows of any good resources.
Last time I checked, nineteen different global climate models are being run by groups on four continents. They pretty much all agree on the overall effect of carbon dioxide on climate, although the details vary somewhat. Which should be pretty non-controversial, since the basic physics is well understood. There are no climate models being run by any groups on any continent that don't show the effect.
I'm curious with these models, do they work with backtesting? How accurate have they been with predicting the last 10 years? The last 20 years?
Wow, what a hostile response to a good point. You weren't one of those people yelling about rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina (stupid location, stupid city!), were you? If you're going to live in a 30-year, 100-year, or 500-year flood plain, eventually you're going to get hit by a flood! If you live in a coastal region that has been hit by many hurricanes in the past, eventually you're going to get hit by a hurricane! That's that.
The trade-off is of course how much money do you spend on precautions.
I completely agree with you. I think there's an entire new strand of luddites emerging today. This is party with good cause--we've learned a lot about chemicals, pollution, and health, that we simply didn't know 50 years ago. We SHOULD be cautious going forward.
But there's such a strand of "anything that has plastic is bad" and "anything that isn't all 'natural' is bad" that are followed by a belief that humans cannot possibly affect POSITIVE climate change, that I'm somewhat baffled.
Humans have in the last 100 years brought about a lot of positive environmental change. Let's going with what we can do, rather than what we're not able to do.
Look, nobody is stupid enough to believe that climate is static. It never has been in the past, and it certainly won't be so going forward. The big questions are what are the driving forces, what are the positives and negatives of climate change as it is currently occurring, what ought to be done, and what can be done. None of these questions are nearly settled.
As an aside, it's always interesting to me when the stereotypical political orthodoxy gets flipped. Republican doves and Democrat hawks on Syria? Likewise, liberals lampoon conservatives as being stuck in the past and afraid of change. Yet for many liberals, climate change is a great fear, a purely negative outcome, and has no conceivable positive results. ~shrug~
What's most interesting about your post is that you apparently find it wise to chastise your father for his foolish beliefs--and gosh darn it, the man just won't listen to facts! At the same time, it's pretty obvious you're throwing around statistics that you can't have read anything about.
I'm assuming the 97% statistic you are referring to is from Cook et al., Quantifying the Consensus on AGW. Cook et al. took two approaches to find the consensus number. The author team first searched databases for papers that had terms such as "global warming" and "global climate change" (I'm not a statistician, but I would think these terms would introduce some pretty intense selection bias right off the bat). Finding 12,465 match papers in the ISI Web of Science database, they tossed 520 (4%) and analyzed the results:
34.8% of these papers endorsed AGW 64.6% took no position on AGW 0.4% rejected AGW 0.2% were uncertain on AGW
Amongst ONLY those papers (34.8% of the total) that took a position on AGW, 97.1% "endorsed the scientific consensus."
The second approach was to mail out a survey to certain selected paper authors. The response rate of the survey was 14%. Again, I'm not a statistician, so I have no idea how good a result this is. Of these 1200 (14%) responses:
62.7% endorsed AGW 35.5% took no position on AGW 1.8% rejected AGW
This is all in the paper, so if I'm misinterpreted anything, or misrepresented anything, let me know.
I think perhaps the surprising thing is that given the search parameters (such as terms that are now highly politically tinged like "global warming") and given AGW is absolutely the easiest way to get funding today as an kind of academic who remotely deals with environmental issues, is that there were as many "no stand on AGW" responses as there were.
It's like asking the Pentagon and the CIA to write papers on the threat to the US from Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea. Regardless of whether there really are threats (or the magnitudes), you can bet when their jobs are on the line, they'll find something!
Isaac Asimov did not have cancer. He died of AIDS complications. He was a very early casualty and was infected by a tainted blood transfusion. He and his family kept the truth a secret for many years due to the early stigma of aids.
I agree that beyond a few hot button primarily social issues (the issues that are at best paid lip service by the parties, but gets the blindeyed partisans really riled up--abortion, gay marriage, immigration, taxes, etc) there's little difference between the parties in overall philosophy. Neither pants wants a small--or even a smaller--government, they just want it big in different ways.
It's long been noted that despite their intense mutual loathing, many of the complaints of the Tea Party and Occupy are the same. Many of (Ron/Rand) Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's complaints are the same. One would never accuse Tea Party, Occupy, Pauls, or Kucinich of being moderates or on the same end of the spectrum, yet they share a lot in common.
However, your statement is patently silly. Beyond the implicitly nebulous nature of left/right (and of course you will trot out the tired "but in Europe Democrats/Republicans would be..." trope. Europe is only one, relatively small example of the spectrum of left/right politics worldwide), many--if not most--of Obama's plank platforms are not in the slightest rightwing. Maybe, just to toss this out there, it's just that the Democrats have gone so far left (and the big government Republicans have followed), that you can't tell the difference either!
2005 is quite out of date now, so I would take those numbers with some caution. The 2010/2011 numbers are a bit different.
Since you either didn't read or misparsed the rest of my post, let me quote myself:
There are a LOT of families that can afford that without dipping into savings and without blinking an eye. The last figures I saw are that around 20% of all American families make 100k or more a year. The most expensive colleges are still really expensive, but there is a HUGE diversity of colleges in the US from junior colleges and community colleges, to small liberals arts, to big state publics, to privates research institutions, etc.
To summarize:
1) There are a lot of families that can pay out 60k a year without blinking. This is true, and the number is certainly in the millions. 2) Over 20% of Americans make more than 100k a year. As far as I can tell from the 2010/11 data, this looks true to me. 3) You'll note I never said that a family making 100k a year could easily pay 60k a year (those are two discrete statements). Most families making 100k+ can easily afford some level of college.
Though I would add, as a minor nit, that in many, many parts of the country, $2000 take home cash a month is enough to live on and be comfortable.
To some degree, the horrifying student loan figures that are frequently bandied about are like the "average credit card balance" figures. After all, 1/3 of all students who go to college end with no debt at all! Only 10% end with 40k of debt, and fewer than 1% of all students end with 100k of debt. Source.
I'm not going to argue that college isn't expensive nor that 100k debt isn't absolutely crushing. I will argue, however, about the causes and reasons, and to a lesser degree the magnitude. To repeat:
Given the tremendous wealth in the US and the availability of cheap, easy to get government money, why NOT raise tuition? With very few exceptions (see Antioch), colleges and universities hardly ever go out of business or have trouble filling seats.
I absolutely agree with you assessment that the Australian educational system is more egalitarian. I think that's probably a good thing.
When I said "trade-oriented" I was indeed referring to how you generally pick your degree immediately at Australian universities and don't take classes outside of your degree. Perhaps my descriptor was a bit off there. It is, however, a very different experience than the average person in a US college/university. I was a computer science and history double major, and took a handful of linguistics classes on the side.
My sister is currently attending Adelaide and her uni experience has been much more focused.
You're absolutely right that I should have mentioned the residential nature of US colleges in comparison to Australia. I've heard school administrators claim that residences are one of the big cost drivers at universities, though I am skeptical of this claim.
First of all, you're comparing an Australian government propaganda site--excuse me--an Australian government site that's sole purpose is to show off what a good idea it is to come to Australia to study to a list of "topuniversities." There's a difference.
Secondly, an Australian bachelors degree is only three years versus four for the US. From my admittedly limited experience, Australian degrees tend to be more trade-oriented than most traditional US universities, so again, the difference is probably not as bleak as you make it out to be.
Finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of Australian universities are public and heavily subsidized (so again, compare apples to apples, publics to publics). Australian professor salaries are also lower, and Australian professorships are more akin to civilian servant positions. Professors in the US--august representatives of the academy--are basically their own social/political/economic class.
The best--or most expensive, depending on your take!--universities in the US probably cost in toto about 60k a year right. There are a LOT of families that can afford that without dipping into savings and without blinking an eye. The last figures I saw are that around 20% of all American families make 100k or more a year. The most expensive colleges are still really expensive, but there is a HUGE diversity of colleges in the US from junior colleges and community colleges, to small liberals arts, to big state publics, to privates research institutions, etc. Given the tremendous wealth in the US and the availability of cheap, easy to get government money, why NOT raise tuition? With very few exceptions (see Antioch), colleges and universities hardly ever go out of business or have trouble filling seats.
The link has the chapter and verse reference, Sanskrit text, transliteration, translation, and commentary. I'm not a Sanskrit reader, but the given translation is very close! King James Bible is not a bad translation.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this is related (unofficially of course) to apple's recent aggressive move over third party lightning (apples current charge/data port) cables.
What aggressive moves?
If you don't mind my asking, could you point me to which Duplin wine you like? I live in NC and have tried just a few local wines (I tried some kind of uber sweet muscadine years ago). Thus far, I haven't found anything that jumped out at me.
I think that's -- without a doubt -- a big part (IMHO anyone who denies that evolution exists should be banned from politics). I think it would be wise to consider wider trends in academia as well, however, amongst both public and private institutions.
I'm not insinuating anything, I've said it several times!
I don't believe that many climate scientists deliberately falsify data. I'm sure there are some because there are people in every field that falsify data. I do believe that when funding is dependent on grants, and grants are highly available for AGW research topics, that researchers have a completely rational motivation to find AGW in places where there is perhaps ambiguity. I'm surprised this is a controversial statement. If you work in academia, finagling to get grants is just part of life. Five years ago just about every grant request in certain branches of physics and chemistry were modified to include something about "biosensors" or "chemical sensors" because there was a huge amount of funding available for homeland security projects. That's just what goes in academia--it is what it is.
Regardless of all of this, I absolutely stand by my statement that "97% of climatologists agree," as sourced in Cook et al., is totally false.
When I was an undergrad, the Republican group at my school pulled every faculty member's political affiliation. History, Art History, Women's Studies, African American Studies, sociology, anthropology, etc, had between them a large number of faculty (100, give or take) and not one Republican--all Democrats. Engineering, computer science, math, etc were spit more much closer, and in the economics department, there were more Republicans still. Why? Ideology obviously has a great deal to do with what people choose to work on. Correlation or causation? I know what I believe.
I have no doubt that most climate scientists do believe in AGW (hesitation over the 97% claim notwithstanding). I believe there are many reasons for this.
The good news is, we should no for sure within say, 10 years. If the models are right, we should see a statistically significant change by then. If the models are wrong...? Until then (and even then, unfortunately), factions will no doubt keep arguing.
You don't have to be rude to have a discussion. If you're going to avoid any discussion of facts and substance and stick with personal attacks though, I suppose it helps. No reason to perpetuate mere mean-spiritedness.
Yeah. Who cares if cities drown, countries disappear under the ocean, and Africa starves if Tropicana can plant some orange groves in Greenland?
Yours is EXACTLY the kind of statement that makes me so uncomfortable. That is such an incredibly hysterical statement. Not even the most extreme estimates of sea rise produce anything like you say within centuries. Africa starve? 10,000 years ago the Sahara was green and wet. Maybe it will be again. There's so much uncertainty, we really, really don't know.
Republican doves were driven out of the party by 2003. And Democrats have shown their propensity for hackery since they've defended actions from their Dear Leader that would have had them in the streets if it was Bush doing the same things for the same reasons.
The Tea Party and libertarian strands of conservatism have made more traditional (paleocon if you will) noninterference conservatism more resurgent than it's been in years. The present Republican dove (nee neocon) can make some excuse by saying that "we learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan."
What the heck excuse do the Democrats have? "We did such a bang up job in Afghanistan and Iraq (plus our limited interference in Libya) that we thought we ought to help out in Syria as well! Never mind the hundred thousand that have already died, a couple hundred deaths from chemicals weapons is the red line!"
Well no, that's actually not what you accused me of initially, but ok. I think there's a pretty huge difference between the statement that "97% of climatologists agree" and "97.1% of a subset of climate papers that contained a certain set of (in my view potentially biasing) words and in which the authors made some kind of judgment call about AGW posit that humans are responsible for at least some portion of global warming." At this level of disagreement, we're down to a religious wedge issue, so I don't expect us to suddenly come to an agreement, but that's how I see it. I do not believe that mine is an unreasonable statement.
To put it more waggishly (or "partisanly" as you may see fit)--is it a surprise that papers (funded by a government that believes in AGW) discussing anthropogenic global warming believe in anthropogenic global warming?
I generally don't respond to rude ACs, so if you want another response, you can either be less rude or post as non-AC (yes, you can be a rude non-AC :)
Those trees have been there for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Seems they do just fine without people fertilizing them and all that. Those trees can also live over 2,000 years, not just "hundreds".. Hundreds of years is many, many different trees.
Obviously. There are a lot more trees that lives for "hundreds" of years than trees that live for "thousands" of years, however.
What is sad is your assumption that researchers are just as ignorant about plant growth as yourself.
I have very few assumptions, because I know very little! From the little that I know, tree ring growth is NOT a simple issue.
See, e.g., http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/
You can accuse me of providing a (in your view, at least!) flawed interpretation, but I copied the detailed numbers right from the paper and put them in post and provided my take on their meaning, so you can't accuse me of not reading them (or "reading into")!
there is no previous warming trend spanning 110 years like we have since the 1900's.
We've never seen warming before over 20 year periods like we see since 1900 [1]
These are pretty amazing claims to make considering that accurate, global instrumental records cover less than the last 100 years!
It's my understanding that most "paleo" records can indicate greater climate shifts, but with nothing like 20 year granularity.
I viewed the BBC page you linked to. It's a perfect example of why I find myself sickeningly torn when it comes to AGW. I'm a big, big believer in protecting lands, reducing pollution, and generally more sustainable living. Like a good 21st century American yuppie I compost my trash and have an organic garden (see, the $65 tomato :-P). However, when I see graphics like the map on the 3rd page, I get irritated! AGW is going to do so much damage--and there's NO potential good? I instantly become--excuse the phrase--skeptical when I see laundry lists of negatives and not even one positive. That just doesn't seem likely.
I find the tree ring cores fascinating, and am sympathetic to the inherent difficulties that paleoclimatologists have to deal with (natural variation being the least of them).
The one thing I've never seen answered about tree ring growth though is how do you separate the temperature signal from:
1) amount of CO2 in atmosphere
2) amount of rainfall
3) amount of sunshine
4) changing nutrient levels in the soil (the soil must change for trees that lives hundreds of years, right?)
I agree with you that it's totally obvious to see "good times" vs "bad times" in tree ring growth, but what exactly makes up good times versus bad times? I would really love to read more, if anybody knows of any good resources.
Last time I checked, nineteen different global climate models are being run by groups on four continents. They pretty much all agree on the overall effect of carbon dioxide on climate, although the details vary somewhat. Which should be pretty non-controversial, since the basic physics is well understood. There are no climate models being run by any groups on any continent that don't show the effect.
I'm curious with these models, do they work with backtesting? How accurate have they been with predicting the last 10 years? The last 20 years?
Wow, what a hostile response to a good point. You weren't one of those people yelling about rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina (stupid location, stupid city!), were you? If you're going to live in a 30-year, 100-year, or 500-year flood plain, eventually you're going to get hit by a flood! If you live in a coastal region that has been hit by many hurricanes in the past, eventually you're going to get hit by a hurricane! That's that.
The trade-off is of course how much money do you spend on precautions.
You're crazy; 97% of people parrot back talking points. You're clearly just a shill.
I completely agree with you. I think there's an entire new strand of luddites emerging today. This is party with good cause--we've learned a lot about chemicals, pollution, and health, that we simply didn't know 50 years ago. We SHOULD be cautious going forward.
But there's such a strand of "anything that has plastic is bad" and "anything that isn't all 'natural' is bad" that are followed by a belief that humans cannot possibly affect POSITIVE climate change, that I'm somewhat baffled.
Humans have in the last 100 years brought about a lot of positive environmental change. Let's going with what we can do, rather than what we're not able to do.
Look, nobody is stupid enough to believe that climate is static. It never has been in the past, and it certainly won't be so going forward. The big questions are what are the driving forces, what are the positives and negatives of climate change as it is currently occurring, what ought to be done, and what can be done. None of these questions are nearly settled.
As an aside, it's always interesting to me when the stereotypical political orthodoxy gets flipped. Republican doves and Democrat hawks on Syria? Likewise, liberals lampoon conservatives as being stuck in the past and afraid of change. Yet for many liberals, climate change is a great fear, a purely negative outcome, and has no conceivable positive results. ~shrug~
What's most interesting about your post is that you apparently find it wise to chastise your father for his foolish beliefs--and gosh darn it, the man just won't listen to facts! At the same time, it's pretty obvious you're throwing around statistics that you can't have read anything about.
I'm assuming the 97% statistic you are referring to is from Cook et al., Quantifying the Consensus on AGW. Cook et al. took two approaches to find the consensus number. The author team first searched databases for papers that had terms such as "global warming" and "global climate change" (I'm not a statistician, but I would think these terms would introduce some pretty intense selection bias right off the bat). Finding 12,465 match papers in the ISI Web of Science database, they tossed 520 (4%) and analyzed the results:
34.8% of these papers endorsed AGW
64.6% took no position on AGW
0.4% rejected AGW
0.2% were uncertain on AGW
Amongst ONLY those papers (34.8% of the total) that took a position on AGW, 97.1% "endorsed the scientific consensus."
The second approach was to mail out a survey to certain selected paper authors. The response rate of the survey was 14%. Again, I'm not a statistician, so I have no idea how good a result this is. Of these 1200 (14%) responses:
62.7% endorsed AGW
35.5% took no position on AGW
1.8% rejected AGW
This is all in the paper, so if I'm misinterpreted anything, or misrepresented anything, let me know.
I think perhaps the surprising thing is that given the search parameters (such as terms that are now highly politically tinged like "global warming") and given AGW is absolutely the easiest way to get funding today as an kind of academic who remotely deals with environmental issues, is that there were as many "no stand on AGW" responses as there were.
It's like asking the Pentagon and the CIA to write papers on the threat to the US from Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea. Regardless of whether there really are threats (or the magnitudes), you can bet when their jobs are on the line, they'll find something!
Isaac Asimov did not have cancer. He died of AIDS complications. He was a very early casualty and was infected by a tainted blood transfusion. He and his family kept the truth a secret for many years due to the early stigma of aids.
I agree that beyond a few hot button primarily social issues (the issues that are at best paid lip service by the parties, but gets the blindeyed partisans really riled up--abortion, gay marriage, immigration, taxes, etc) there's little difference between the parties in overall philosophy. Neither pants wants a small--or even a smaller--government, they just want it big in different ways.
It's long been noted that despite their intense mutual loathing, many of the complaints of the Tea Party and Occupy are the same. Many of (Ron/Rand) Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's complaints are the same. One would never accuse Tea Party, Occupy, Pauls, or Kucinich of being moderates or on the same end of the spectrum, yet they share a lot in common.
However, your statement is patently silly. Beyond the implicitly nebulous nature of left/right (and of course you will trot out the tired "but in Europe Democrats/Republicans would be..." trope. Europe is only one, relatively small example of the spectrum of left/right politics worldwide), many--if not most--of Obama's plank platforms are not in the slightest rightwing. Maybe, just to toss this out there, it's just that the Democrats have gone so far left (and the big government Republicans have followed), that you can't tell the difference either!
2005 is quite out of date now, so I would take those numbers with some caution. The 2010/2011 numbers are a bit different.
Since you either didn't read or misparsed the rest of my post, let me quote myself:
There are a LOT of families that can afford that without dipping into savings and without blinking an eye. The last figures I saw are that around 20% of all American families make 100k or more a year. The most expensive colleges are still really expensive, but there is a HUGE diversity of colleges in the US from junior colleges and community colleges, to small liberals arts, to big state publics, to privates research institutions, etc.
To summarize:
1) There are a lot of families that can pay out 60k a year without blinking. This is true, and the number is certainly in the millions.
2) Over 20% of Americans make more than 100k a year. As far as I can tell from the 2010/11 data, this looks true to me.
3) You'll note I never said that a family making 100k a year could easily pay 60k a year (those are two discrete statements). Most families making 100k+ can easily afford some level of college.
Though I would add, as a minor nit, that in many, many parts of the country, $2000 take home cash a month is enough to live on and be comfortable.
To some degree, the horrifying student loan figures that are frequently bandied about are like the "average credit card balance" figures. After all, 1/3 of all students who go to college end with no debt at all! Only 10% end with 40k of debt, and fewer than 1% of all students end with 100k of debt. Source.
I'm not going to argue that college isn't expensive nor that 100k debt isn't absolutely crushing. I will argue, however, about the causes and reasons, and to a lesser degree the magnitude. To repeat:
Given the tremendous wealth in the US and the availability of cheap, easy to get government money, why NOT raise tuition? With very few exceptions (see Antioch), colleges and universities hardly ever go out of business or have trouble filling seats.
I absolutely agree with you assessment that the Australian educational system is more egalitarian. I think that's probably a good thing.
When I said "trade-oriented" I was indeed referring to how you generally pick your degree immediately at Australian universities and don't take classes outside of your degree. Perhaps my descriptor was a bit off there. It is, however, a very different experience than the average person in a US college/university. I was a computer science and history double major, and took a handful of linguistics classes on the side.
My sister is currently attending Adelaide and her uni experience has been much more focused.
You're absolutely right that I should have mentioned the residential nature of US colleges in comparison to Australia. I've heard school administrators claim that residences are one of the big cost drivers at universities, though I am skeptical of this claim.
Troll?! Seriously, wtf is going on with moderation here... I thought this was one of the least trollish things I've ever posted! :p
First of all, you're comparing an Australian government propaganda site--excuse me--an Australian government site that's sole purpose is to show off what a good idea it is to come to Australia to study to a list of "topuniversities." There's a difference.
Secondly, an Australian bachelors degree is only three years versus four for the US. From my admittedly limited experience, Australian degrees tend to be more trade-oriented than most traditional US universities, so again, the difference is probably not as bleak as you make it out to be.
Finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of Australian universities are public and heavily subsidized (so again, compare apples to apples, publics to publics). Australian professor salaries are also lower, and Australian professorships are more akin to civilian servant positions. Professors in the US--august representatives of the academy--are basically their own social/political/economic class.
The best--or most expensive, depending on your take!--universities in the US probably cost in toto about 60k a year right. There are a LOT of families that can afford that without dipping into savings and without blinking an eye. The last figures I saw are that around 20% of all American families make 100k or more a year. The most expensive colleges are still really expensive, but there is a HUGE diversity of colleges in the US from junior colleges and community colleges, to small liberals arts, to big state publics, to privates research institutions, etc. Given the tremendous wealth in the US and the availability of cheap, easy to get government money, why NOT raise tuition? With very few exceptions (see Antioch), colleges and universities hardly ever go out of business or have trouble filling seats.
The link has the chapter and verse reference, Sanskrit text, transliteration, translation, and commentary. I'm not a Sanskrit reader, but the given translation is very close! King James Bible is not a bad translation.
Quick google turned up this link to the chapter and verse:
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-11-30.html
Pretty interesting.
I love that somebody both figured this out AND got first post.