Arkansas Blog

They are.

If you will recall the lines of Amazing Grace, the story ends on a different note. Can one be afforded the opportunity to advance an understanding for the architecture of how nature is evolving? Can our writing and behavior reflect a different paradigm by which We, The People share and transmit knowledge, discovery with application and meaning through the Liberal Arts?

I bow to science.

Since this means it will happen anyhow, does this mean we can worsen its intensity? I.e., if we DON'T curb emissions now, it will get far worse if not within our lifetimes, then our grandchildren's.

It was already hard enough convincing people to curb emissions for our immediate generations, but now we have to tell them to care about people 1000 years from now? Good grief. The troglodytes will have none of that.

Also, I haven't read the study, but our new energy secretary, Stephen Chu, used to give lectures on not only stopping excessive green house gases, but actually REVERSING global warming. I.e., changing the composition of the atmosphere back to what it was before we started to mess with it. Does this study assume that we wouldn't take measures to actually reverse it instead of letting it be as-is? I think so.

The least Congress could do is pass a non-binding resolution demanding that the sun quite having sunspots. (Maybe the most, too.)

Are we allowed to still call in global warming, although Al no longer does.

"changing the composition of the atmosphere back to what it was before we started to mess with it."

What is that suppose to mean?