No, 2014 WASN'T the "warmest year in history"

Donations to charities in the U.S. is highest relatively speaking as a percentage of income because of the generous tax breaks provided by the government for charitable giving.

U.S. culture is not inherently more generous; we merely have the incentives in place to give more.

We were comparing the conservatives to liberals and not US vs non-US.  Both conservatives and liberals get the same tax breaks, but conservatives seem to give more to charity.  btw, by charity I don't mean giving to your own family foundation.

Oh really?  "we?"  "you" maybe. See the statement by Juhomorko.

To quote 'And that culture is something europeans should learn'.

With respect to the assertion that U.S. conservatives seem to give more to charity, as a percentage of income, I am not convinced. Back it up with statistics and factual data from a verifiable source with no axe to grind, and then we can talk. 

Just a comment - I've noticed before that many Americans seem to think that global warming is something between the US government and them. It isnt. Obama isn't an authority in the matter - he isn't a climate scientist, he is a politician. You can just ignore what he says about the matter: His opinion isn't better than any other guy on the street.

Governments don't proove anything as such, they govern. Scientists proove things.

how about Mitt Romney vs. Obama? Both of their tax returns were made public.  Or you can can just ask your tax advisor, (s)he can tell you which ones give more to charity. 

I agree.  It has to do with what would be financial beneficial to the politician's friends.

Comparing two presidential candidates gives you very little insight. Nevertheless, since you ask, here is a Times report on Romney charitable giving vs. Obama charitable giving in 2010 and at the end, an addendum for 2011.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/13/is-mitt-romney-really-more-charitable-than-barack-obama/.

Results were comparable as percentage of income. However, this is just an anecdote.

If you want to be convincing, you need to provide aggregate data.

Also, be aware that the Mormon church in particular (of which, Romney is a member) will find a very high charitable contribution rate - regardless of political ideology. In Romney's case, almost all of his contributions were to his church, according to Forbes, with additional contributions made to Brigham Young University - which may as well be part of the Mormon church. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/).

<sigh>. I never should have entered this non-chess-related thread. Turning off tracking...

I am not familiar with sampland.times, but according to politico, fox, giving-news, etc, Romeny gave a lot more.  Interesting that you feel that giving to a church is not charity.

Am I the only one who sees global climate change and political climate change as two separate issues?

The people with the most extreme opinions always seem to be non-scientists; they are convinced they know the truth. 

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Those who are motivated only by a search for the truth admit there is plenty of room for debate. I do still think we should reduce carbon emissions drastically; move quickly toward renewable resources. My brother just put a geothermal heating/cooling system in his house. All it is is liquid in pipes running in and out of the house, transferring heat in and out. Only real cost was installation and it will pay for itself in a couple of years. Little to no environmental impact. This kind of stuff is happening all over the place, not to mention solar, wind, etc. 

I like how Obama always says "folks." He's just one of us. He can talk ghetto with the best of them. 

It is not the purview of governments to determine the true nature of the world around us.

Edit:  I see 'yoghurt beat me to it. 

All nations, to a degree, are socialist.  I don't drive on the governor's roads.  I drive on our roads.

<sigh>.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

I am not a climate scientist. But gosh, I can certainly listen to climate scientists to help me form my opinions.

In addition, I can examine the data. And I can examine the research. By God, having a college education allows me to <gasp> read the papers! They are not that technical. (I'm a mathematician. I have seen highly technical papers. These are not that technical). Google them under Google Scholar. The paper that formed the '97% consensus' figure - though to be fair is a bit mis-quoted - is a good source, as it points to over 4000 other papers that reference the topic.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

"1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism", updated February 2014

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

1=1, no matter how many 'peers' say "it's possible that 1=2.."