!
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
As the sun burns off its hydrogen it burns a bit cooler. Four billion years ago it was hotter than now. In another four billion years the sun will run out of hydrogen fuel completely. Until that time it will steadily burn cooler and cooler.
The drawback to that is when the sun switches fuel it expands. It expands to the point where Earth's orbit will be inside the outer envelope of the sun itself.
Meanwhile the sun is very slightly variable as it burns. The eleven year cycle of sunspots are another way of saying there is an eleven year cycle of heat output variation reaching the Earth.
Right now the sun is in a period of cooling and the Earth has recorded the hottest three years in recorded history.
I merely stated happiness this happened during sunspot activity when less radiation was hitting our overheated Earth.
The drawback to that is when the sun switches fuel it expands. It expands to the point where Earth's orbit will be inside the outer envelope of the sun itself.
Meanwhile the sun is very slightly variable as it burns. The eleven year cycle of sunspots are another way of saying there is an eleven year cycle of heat output variation reaching the Earth.
Right now the sun is in a period of cooling and the Earth has recorded the hottest three years in recorded history.
I merely stated happiness this happened during sunspot activity when less radiation was hitting our overheated Earth.
James Delingpole is a cherry picking shill.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/
https://youtu.be/LyMaRx7gIGY
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/
https://youtu.be/LyMaRx7gIGY
Ttystikk
Member
Y'all should look up Paul Beckwith on YouTube. He's done a long series of 15 minute videos on North Pole climate particulars.
His latest is on methane emissions. It looks like he's spotting the signs of methane hydrates melting and releasing methane from beneath the surface of the Arctic Ocean, which, when combined with other sources such as methane blowouts on Arctic tundra and methane releases from oil and gas extraction, spells a very serious increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Methane is some 30 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. It has nowhere near the persistence of CO² but methane emissions rates from natural sources seem to be in some kind of self reinforcing feedback loop.
I'm gonna say that's bad.
His latest is on methane emissions. It looks like he's spotting the signs of methane hydrates melting and releasing methane from beneath the surface of the Arctic Ocean, which, when combined with other sources such as methane blowouts on Arctic tundra and methane releases from oil and gas extraction, spells a very serious increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Methane is some 30 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. It has nowhere near the persistence of CO² but methane emissions rates from natural sources seem to be in some kind of self reinforcing feedback loop.
I'm gonna say that's bad.
R
Rubber Chicken
I'm afraid it is going to take people actually to feel and see the effects for themselves before they scratch their heads and think 'Huh??'
I don't subscribe to the belief that we are definitely doomed YET.... but i'm sure we wont change behavior significantly enough until we need a cure, which will be much more of a problem than possible prevention.
I don't subscribe to the belief that we are definitely doomed YET.... but i'm sure we wont change behavior significantly enough until we need a cure, which will be much more of a problem than possible prevention.
My daughter does paleogeology and goes on summer field trips to various spots in Alaska.
The hottest spot right now is along the Colville river in the North Slope permafrost.
A major size bone bed from 65,000,000 years ago began melting out during the North Slope oil exploration. This meltout has grown extensively and finally a tunnel was dug into the face of the cutbank to record the bones before the river washed them away. Satellite photos show hundreds of these permafrost collapses across the northern half of Alaska, all of them new within my lifetime.
A coincidence the bones were buried and remained frozen for the whole 65 million years and just now melted in a single generation.
Coincidences like this are suddenly happening all over the world in all climates and affecting all species.
This has the crazies saying humans might have a hand in it as it never happened ever before.
Silly crazies and their exalted opinion of mankind. We all know statistics lie and coincidences happen. How did you meet your significant other? Coincidence? Science knew that.
The hottest spot right now is along the Colville river in the North Slope permafrost.
A major size bone bed from 65,000,000 years ago began melting out during the North Slope oil exploration. This meltout has grown extensively and finally a tunnel was dug into the face of the cutbank to record the bones before the river washed them away. Satellite photos show hundreds of these permafrost collapses across the northern half of Alaska, all of them new within my lifetime.
A coincidence the bones were buried and remained frozen for the whole 65 million years and just now melted in a single generation.
Coincidences like this are suddenly happening all over the world in all climates and affecting all species.
This has the crazies saying humans might have a hand in it as it never happened ever before.
Silly crazies and their exalted opinion of mankind. We all know statistics lie and coincidences happen. How did you meet your significant other? Coincidence? Science knew that.
!
R
Rubber Chicken
Coincidences do indeed happen all the time, but it is also true that the more you look for coincidences the more you will find....
Do you really think the whole scientific community doesn't already know that??
Scientists profession is to DISPROVE things, an that is where they find PROOF of things, not the other way around.
!
St. Phatty
Active member
I look at the North Pole ALL THE TIME
on my compass.
on my compass.
sensing a pause moment, time for the global temperature update
trichrider has laid down the claim that the last 2 years are a cooling trend
this is true, of course as he said 2 years ain't much
here's the mainstream perspective
2 years ago(or so) we had the record temperatures from the last el nino
it has cooled down somewhat, just finished an el nina
so nothing really exceptions, that's common for the el nino/la nina cycles
now for the world snapshot, mostly warm
but not in the north at the moment, steenking cold in parts of north america
and russia, forget about, freeze ass city in march. March
March 2018 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
March 2018 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
March 2018 was characterized by warmer-than-average conditions across much of the world's surface. However, temperature departures from average varied greatly across the Northern Hemisphere land. Warmer-than-average conditions were present across Alaska, northern and eastern Canada, South America, Africa, Australia and much of Asia. Record warmth was observed across parts of eastern Africa, the Middle East, and southern Asia, which corresponds with the locations that had the most notable warm temperature departures from average (+3.0°C [+5.4°F] or higher) during the month. Near- to cooler-than-average conditions were present across much of the contiguous U.S., southwestern Canada, Europe, and western and northern Russia. Across the oceans, record warmth was observed scattered across all oceans, while cooler-than-average conditions were limited to the North Atlantic Ocean, central and eastern tropical as well as southeastern Pacific Ocean, and across parts of the eastern Indian Ocean. No land or ocean areas experienced record cold temperatures during March 2018.
Overall, the combined global land and ocean temperature for March 2018 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F) and the fifth highest March temperature departure from average in the 139-year record. This value was also 0.40°C (0.72°F) cooler than the record high set in 2016 and was the smallest temperature departure from average in the last four years. The years 2015–17 are the three warmest Marches on record. March 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive March and the 399th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. March 2018 also had the highest monthly temperature departure from average since July 2017. The March global land and ocean surface temperature has increased 0.08°C (0.14°F) per decade since 1880. That rate is more than double since 1980.
The global land surface temperature for March 2018 was 1.49°C (2.68°F) above average and the seventh highest since global records began in 1880. The global oceans ranked as the fifth highest on record at 0.58°C (1.04°F) above average. Regionally, three of the six continents had a top ten warm March on record. Europe and Asia had their coldest March since 2013.
Select national information is highlighted below. Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data:
trichrider has laid down the claim that the last 2 years are a cooling trend
this is true, of course as he said 2 years ain't much
here's the mainstream perspective
2 years ago(or so) we had the record temperatures from the last el nino
it has cooled down somewhat, just finished an el nina
so nothing really exceptions, that's common for the el nino/la nina cycles
now for the world snapshot, mostly warm
but not in the north at the moment, steenking cold in parts of north america
and russia, forget about, freeze ass city in march. March
March 2018 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
March 2018 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
March 2018 was characterized by warmer-than-average conditions across much of the world's surface. However, temperature departures from average varied greatly across the Northern Hemisphere land. Warmer-than-average conditions were present across Alaska, northern and eastern Canada, South America, Africa, Australia and much of Asia. Record warmth was observed across parts of eastern Africa, the Middle East, and southern Asia, which corresponds with the locations that had the most notable warm temperature departures from average (+3.0°C [+5.4°F] or higher) during the month. Near- to cooler-than-average conditions were present across much of the contiguous U.S., southwestern Canada, Europe, and western and northern Russia. Across the oceans, record warmth was observed scattered across all oceans, while cooler-than-average conditions were limited to the North Atlantic Ocean, central and eastern tropical as well as southeastern Pacific Ocean, and across parts of the eastern Indian Ocean. No land or ocean areas experienced record cold temperatures during March 2018.
Overall, the combined global land and ocean temperature for March 2018 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F) and the fifth highest March temperature departure from average in the 139-year record. This value was also 0.40°C (0.72°F) cooler than the record high set in 2016 and was the smallest temperature departure from average in the last four years. The years 2015–17 are the three warmest Marches on record. March 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive March and the 399th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. March 2018 also had the highest monthly temperature departure from average since July 2017. The March global land and ocean surface temperature has increased 0.08°C (0.14°F) per decade since 1880. That rate is more than double since 1980.
The global land surface temperature for March 2018 was 1.49°C (2.68°F) above average and the seventh highest since global records began in 1880. The global oceans ranked as the fifth highest on record at 0.58°C (1.04°F) above average. Regionally, three of the six continents had a top ten warm March on record. Europe and Asia had their coldest March since 2013.
Select national information is highlighted below. Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data:
!
I put up the cost of college until enough scholarships rolled in she got the rest of the degree without me. She is the third generation to get a degree there.
I am thinking I need to work on my delivery, I went for math rather than geology and the humor does not seem to come through as well. I assume knowledge equal to my specialty but it turns out most degrees do not require much in the way of math or physics.
The reverse holds true as well, I suck at humanities.
Firm believer in global warming, those dinosaur fossils were laid down when Alaska was three hundred miles closer to the north pole with a climate very similar to the northwest coast around Seattle.
It took a great many thousands of years for the change over.
And poor me ended up with this outlandish notion it would take just as long to change back unless acted upon by an outside source. A rule some smart guy figured out long ago.
He also said planetary orbits are not circles, so we know he was actually a silly man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMYjzWSlI4
[YOUTUBEIF]ksMYjzWSlI4[/YOUTUBEIF]
Dr. Tim Ball discusses the fraud of global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdPM5FY8Ug
[YOUTUBEIF]dcdPM5FY8Ug[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]ksMYjzWSlI4[/YOUTUBEIF]
Dr. Tim Ball discusses the fraud of global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdPM5FY8Ug
[YOUTUBEIF]dcdPM5FY8Ug[/YOUTUBEIF]
Hermen_eutics
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMYjzWSlI4
[YOUTUBEIF]ksMYjzWSlI4[/YOUTUBEIF]
Dr. Tim Ball discusses the fraud of global warming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdPM5FY8Ug
[YOUTUBEIF]dcdPM5FY8Ug[/YOUTUBEIF]
Attachments
this is a little dramatic
this is a little dramatic
and these days, that's saying something
just another chart about the northern places, and some will not worry at all
in short, the multi year ice up at the ice cap has gone AWOL, been happening for a while
but now, Jesus it has really gone down in the last few years
what will the north pole look like after a few years of no multi year ice?
it seems we are about to find out
this is a little dramatic
and these days, that's saying something
just another chart about the northern places, and some will not worry at all
in short, the multi year ice up at the ice cap has gone AWOL, been happening for a while
but now, Jesus it has really gone down in the last few years
what will the north pole look like after a few years of no multi year ice?
it seems we are about to find out
Attachments
is that you modine?
if you think that insult will alter my view then you haven't paid attention. close minded much?
ad hominem attacks just cement my resolve and reveal your ignorance.
bring some science to refute my stance. you can't.
you're as big a fraud as the alarmists....
Shock Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco-Friendly’ than Climate Alarmists
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.6 May 2018
Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.
Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who “regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures” and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology.
The researchers grouped their subjects into three categories based on their attitude toward climate change: the “skeptical,” the “cautiously worried,” and the “highly concerned” and correlated their beliefs with their personal lifestyle choices.
The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.
While very supportive of government action on climate, the group of “highly concerned” were the least likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways on a personal level, the study revealed.
The self-described “skeptics,” on the other hand, while the most opposed to government climate policies, were also the “most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the study found.
The environmental lifestyle choices examined by Hall and his team included recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.
Roughly once every eight weeks during the course of a year, participants in the study were asked about their climate change beliefs as well as their degree of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards. They were also queried regarding their personal conduct.
As a result of the study, researchers concluded that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”
While the empirical study by Hall and his team did not offer an explanation for the inverse correlation between environmental belief and action, at least two possible theories present themselves.
First, there is a tendency among those who believe they are on the “right side” of an issue at the macro (governmental, social) level to be negligent in the same area at the micro or personal level, an instance of a phenomenon known in psychology as “moral licensing” or “self-licensing.”
By supporting government action in a given area, people may feel morally legitimatized to cut corners at the personal level, and the area of environmental stewardship is no exception.
As Stefan Hartmann of the University of Passau describes in his paper titled “Moral Licensing in the context of Environmental Behaviour,” such an apparent disconnect between belief and action is not uncommon. Supporting government intervention often leads a person to believe he has done his or her share for the environment, leading to “self-licensing” to act in contrary ways at the personal level, as other reports have noted.
Such “moral licensing” may help explain the apparent disconnect between belief and action of the world’s most famous climate alarmist, Al Gore. His 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion reportedly consumes 21.3 times more kilowatt hours than the average U.S. household — including 66,159 kWh per year just to heat his swimming pool.
A second explanation may be found in the distinctive moral universes of conservatives and liberals. While good and bad are bipartisan and neither side can claim definitive moral high ground, there are statistically based moral tendencies that are revealing.
As reported by the New York Times in 2008, liberals favor generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad, but give comparatively little in personal contributions to charitable causes. Personal virtue can be viewed as less important than government programs, which helps explain why liberals favor higher levels of taxation than conservatives, who would rather donate their money than have it taken from them.
Average annual charitable contributions from households headed by conservatives, for instance, give 30-50 percent more than liberal households, the Times article stated.
Similarly, the “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy has found that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so, it noted.
“How America Gives,” a 2014 study published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, used IRS data to analyze giving patterns across the country and compared levels of giving with how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election (Romney v. Obama).
The study found that the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income voted for Obama. The top 17 most generous states all went for Romney.
The partisan divide in generosity is not limited to charitable donations. Conservatives also appear to be significantly more generous than liberals in non-financial ways, such as volunteering their time and giving blood, the Times article said.
Since the most ardent believers in climate change tend to be on the liberal end of the political spectrum, it would make sense that they would push government action on the environment, while doing less at the individual level.
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.6 May 2018
Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.
Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who “regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures” and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology.
The researchers grouped their subjects into three categories based on their attitude toward climate change: the “skeptical,” the “cautiously worried,” and the “highly concerned” and correlated their beliefs with their personal lifestyle choices.
The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.
While very supportive of government action on climate, the group of “highly concerned” were the least likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways on a personal level, the study revealed.
The self-described “skeptics,” on the other hand, while the most opposed to government climate policies, were also the “most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the study found.
The environmental lifestyle choices examined by Hall and his team included recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.
Roughly once every eight weeks during the course of a year, participants in the study were asked about their climate change beliefs as well as their degree of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards. They were also queried regarding their personal conduct.
As a result of the study, researchers concluded that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”
While the empirical study by Hall and his team did not offer an explanation for the inverse correlation between environmental belief and action, at least two possible theories present themselves.
First, there is a tendency among those who believe they are on the “right side” of an issue at the macro (governmental, social) level to be negligent in the same area at the micro or personal level, an instance of a phenomenon known in psychology as “moral licensing” or “self-licensing.”
By supporting government action in a given area, people may feel morally legitimatized to cut corners at the personal level, and the area of environmental stewardship is no exception.
As Stefan Hartmann of the University of Passau describes in his paper titled “Moral Licensing in the context of Environmental Behaviour,” such an apparent disconnect between belief and action is not uncommon. Supporting government intervention often leads a person to believe he has done his or her share for the environment, leading to “self-licensing” to act in contrary ways at the personal level, as other reports have noted.
Such “moral licensing” may help explain the apparent disconnect between belief and action of the world’s most famous climate alarmist, Al Gore. His 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion reportedly consumes 21.3 times more kilowatt hours than the average U.S. household — including 66,159 kWh per year just to heat his swimming pool.
A second explanation may be found in the distinctive moral universes of conservatives and liberals. While good and bad are bipartisan and neither side can claim definitive moral high ground, there are statistically based moral tendencies that are revealing.
As reported by the New York Times in 2008, liberals favor generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad, but give comparatively little in personal contributions to charitable causes. Personal virtue can be viewed as less important than government programs, which helps explain why liberals favor higher levels of taxation than conservatives, who would rather donate their money than have it taken from them.
Average annual charitable contributions from households headed by conservatives, for instance, give 30-50 percent more than liberal households, the Times article stated.
Similarly, the “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy has found that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so, it noted.
“How America Gives,” a 2014 study published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, used IRS data to analyze giving patterns across the country and compared levels of giving with how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election (Romney v. Obama).
The study found that the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income voted for Obama. The top 17 most generous states all went for Romney.
The partisan divide in generosity is not limited to charitable donations. Conservatives also appear to be significantly more generous than liberals in non-financial ways, such as volunteering their time and giving blood, the Times article said.
Since the most ardent believers in climate change tend to be on the liberal end of the political spectrum, it would make sense that they would push government action on the environment, while doing less at the individual level.
Hermen_eutics
Member
Shock Study: Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco-Friendly’ than Climate Alarmists
by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.6 May 2018
Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.
Michael Hall, a psychologist from the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers in a yearlong longitudinal study of 600 Americans who “regularly reported their climate change beliefs, pro-environmental behavior, and other climate-change related measures” and published the results of their study in The Journal of Environmental Psychology.
The researchers grouped their subjects into three categories based on their attitude toward climate change: the “skeptical,” the “cautiously worried,” and the “highly concerned” and correlated their beliefs with their personal lifestyle choices.
The results of the study contradicted the intuitive assumption that people most concerned about climate change would be the most likely to engage in eco-friendly behavior, revealing instead that the contrary is true. There is an inverse correlation between climate-change concern and environmentally beneficial action.
While very supportive of government action on climate, the group of “highly concerned” were the least likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways on a personal level, the study revealed.
The self-described “skeptics,” on the other hand, while the most opposed to government climate policies, were also the “most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors,” the study found.
The environmental lifestyle choices examined by Hall and his team included recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.
Roughly once every eight weeks during the course of a year, participants in the study were asked about their climate change beliefs as well as their degree of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards. They were also queried regarding their personal conduct.
As a result of the study, researchers concluded that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”
While the empirical study by Hall and his team did not offer an explanation for the inverse correlation between environmental belief and action, at least two possible theories present themselves.
First, there is a tendency among those who believe they are on the “right side” of an issue at the macro (governmental, social) level to be negligent in the same area at the micro or personal level, an instance of a phenomenon known in psychology as “moral licensing” or “self-licensing.”
By supporting government action in a given area, people may feel morally legitimatized to cut corners at the personal level, and the area of environmental stewardship is no exception.
As Stefan Hartmann of the University of Passau describes in his paper titled “Moral Licensing in the context of Environmental Behaviour,” such an apparent disconnect between belief and action is not uncommon. Supporting government intervention often leads a person to believe he has done his or her share for the environment, leading to “self-licensing” to act in contrary ways at the personal level, as other reports have noted.
Such “moral licensing” may help explain the apparent disconnect between belief and action of the world’s most famous climate alarmist, Al Gore. His 20-room, 10,070-square-foot, Colonial-style mansion reportedly consumes 21.3 times more kilowatt hours than the average U.S. household — including 66,159 kWh per year just to heat his swimming pool.
A second explanation may be found in the distinctive moral universes of conservatives and liberals. While good and bad are bipartisan and neither side can claim definitive moral high ground, there are statistically based moral tendencies that are revealing.
As reported by the New York Times in 2008, liberals favor generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad, but give comparatively little in personal contributions to charitable causes. Personal virtue can be viewed as less important than government programs, which helps explain why liberals favor higher levels of taxation than conservatives, who would rather donate their money than have it taken from them.
Average annual charitable contributions from households headed by conservatives, for instance, give 30-50 percent more than liberal households, the Times article stated.
Similarly, the “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy has found that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so, it noted.
“How America Gives,” a 2014 study published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, used IRS data to analyze giving patterns across the country and compared levels of giving with how each state voted in the 2012 presidential election (Romney v. Obama).
The study found that the states in which people gave the highest percentage of their adjusted gross incomes were also states that voted for Romney, while states in which people gave the lowest percentage of their adjusted gross income voted for Obama. The top 17 most generous states all went for Romney.
The partisan divide in generosity is not limited to charitable donations. Conservatives also appear to be significantly more generous than liberals in non-financial ways, such as volunteering their time and giving blood, the Times article said.
Since the most ardent believers in climate change tend to be on the liberal end of the political spectrum, it would make sense that they would push government action on the environment, while doing less at the individual level.
Climate denier, racist, bigot and gullible slave to ignorance all connected!
Who woulda thunk?
Hermen_eutics
Member
2#
