There is a "party line" in many scientific fields, and has been since the beginnings of science. The history of science has often consisted of mavericks busting, with difficulty, through this party line to go off in some new direction. Darwin wasn't always an "everybody knows that."

Bursting out? More like slowly emerging from a viscous vat of hot tar.

This debate feels different though. It's not as abstract of a discussion when we're talking about a possible climactic threshold being reached.

My home state Montana hasn't had a real winter in about 5 years. Sure there are still days where it gets cold, but not the same number and snow is much more scarce. Same thing in S. Dakota no doubt. Things are literally warming up. The various systems that have acted like buffers to damp any large temperature swings in the past are filling or warming/melting or etc...

I wish and hope it's cyclic and that humans are a insignificant emitter on big momma's skin but various measurements show otherwise. Certainly the warming trend is natural since the end of the ice age. However, carbon dioxide is at the highest level in at least 400,000 years. It could be longer, that's as far back as the ice core data I've seen extends.

Again, it's the same ol' story. Just like the national debt, the greenhouse gas "surplus" is something that the grandkids will have to pay for. I really hope that it could just all lead to better growing seasons or some other purely beneficial effect but that's not an excuse to ignore the problem. Kyoto would force our industry to retool, but it's something the U.S. can do and will probably have to do. The sooner the better.

If not, I'll bring Scott a palette of Phat-Ass tomatos.