My contention with the contents of this paragraph lies in the fact that science is but an extension of art, sharing similar characteristics with it. I would argue anyway that Newton's work is just as nuanced, integral, and unique as Monet's or Dante's. Science began as metaphysics--"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space"--(Google). I believe scientists and artists to be explorers. The ways in which they explore are similar; however, their headings are different.

Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?