🚀 go-pugleaf

>I believe proof and common sense are necessary and both indicate
>global warming is ocurring and is caused by man.  I don't know if you
>consider the following facts proof, but I find them pretty convincing:
>
>- 1994 was the warmest year in history
>
>- 11 of the warmest years have occurred in the last 15 years
>
>- certain Antarctic penguin populations have been decreasing and it's
>been linked to the increase in tempatures.
>
>--- the edge of the Qori Kalis glacier in the Peruvian Andes Mountains
>was retreating at a rate of 13 feet annually between 1963 and 1978.
>By 1995, that rate had grown to 99 feet each year.
>
> -- The freezing level in the Earth's atmosphere -- the height where
>the air temperature reaches 32 degrees F -- has been gaining altitude
>since 1970 at a rate of nearly 15 feet each year.
>
>- Spring comes a full week earlier in the Northern Hemisphere and
>Vegetation has increased 10 percent above the 45th parallel since
>1980.
>
>If you want to question wether man is the main culprit, I can easily
>find some facts on that too, but I will leave you w/this:
>
>A LARGE MAJORITY of scientists who have spent their career on this
>very topic say global warming is occuring and we are the cause.  Of
>course, there is a small minority (mostly funded by industry) that
>disagrees.  But, I think you'll find some level of disagreement among
>any subject.
>
>---------------
>John W. Herberg
>herberj@ibm.net

Yes, I agree with you.  Proof can be very valuable, interesting, and
necessary.  Yet, for some people, proof isn't good enough (like the small
minority funded by industry).  As in the case with Norm Lenhart, no matter
how much proof you give to him, he'll never listen to it because his narrow
mind won't allow room for other possibilities.  He seems to dislike people
who claim that there is global warming so greatly, that he will never change
to accept their ideas.  In his situation, I think common sense is the only
key.  Yet, it seems that for him, even that isn't even good enough.  I don't
mean to be rude to the poor old guy, but he does put it onto himself.

I have read many similar issues like ones that you have described in various
magazines, newspapers, and web pages.  I would say that it is very obvious
that something isn't right.  In other words, I agree with you completely.
But, that's just me.  The other day, I had an argument with this guy because
he thought that I was stupid for believing that food plays a big role in
most deaths and diseases within this country.  I tried giving him a little
lecture about all the things that I have been learning over the years about
nutrition, but he just wouldn't listen.  So, the next day, I brought a
little article to work showing how scientists were finding a link between a
certain food product and heart disease.  Unfortunately, that particular guy
was so bias to the whole concept that he didn't even cast an eye on the
article.  Instead he sent it straight to the ground file (recycling bin).
No matter how much evidence there is out there, he won't listen.  So, in his
case, proof has no meaning.  The only thing that will do him any good is a
little common sense.  Common sense, for instance, might show him that humans
can work in similar ways to a car.  If you dump motor oil into the engine of
a car, it'll probably run pretty well.  But if you dump water or sand into
it, you're bound to have some difficulties.  As for humans, if you feed
yourself with whole foods, your body will probably be ok.  But, if you live
off of junk like McDonalds, something is bound to go wrong.  Some people
need more than a little proof.