Reprising her starring role in "I'm So Short-Sighted, I Need Tri-focals", Annie eschews reality and attacks the partisan mother earth who's all hell-bent at getting back at conservatives through liberal trickery.
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Honey, what you do to your own body cannot be projected onto those you oppose simply because you're unhappy with what you're seeing in the mirror.
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.
The rest of who? Besides the inevitable impact beachfront property's going to feel as the seas rise... who's the mis-voting resident of sunny Florida now?
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter...
Ah, gross ignorance... elegant in its simplistic form. We know how technology works and we are also, much to your chagrin, aware of how using small incremental steps we can work towards addressing waste. Conserving if you will.
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Are alternatives that hard for conservatives to understand. Does the overwhelming delicate balance of this tiny marble in a teeny galaxy in a vast universe not make it a primary goal to ensure it can continue to support life and that the best way of assisting the planet is to be stewards, not gluttons?
Willingness to ignore the obvious environmental impacts and then wield them as a partisan attacks rather than submit constructive alternatives seems like a significant waste of personal energy and time.
Oh and Ann... no one's going to try and "kill" agriculture with changes, lack of changes are going to kill agricultural processes by themselves. Course, you're jingoistically myopic and could give a shit about the rest of the planet.
In a cruel twist of fate, most of the hunger resulting from global warming is likely to be felt by those who haven't caused the problem: the people in developing countries. At the same time, it may be a boon to agriculture in richer northern countries more responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate instability.
"With climate change, the agricultural areas in Canada, Russia and Europe will expand, while the areas suited for agriculture in the tropics will decline," Dr. Verchot says. "Basically, the situation is that those who are well off now will be better off in the future, and those who are in problems will have greater problems."
Agriculture is vulnerable to global warming because the world's most widely eaten grains - corn, wheat, and rice - are exquisitely sensitive to higher temperatures. In the tropics and subtropics, many crops are already being grown just under the maximum temperatures they can tolerate.
Over the 10,000 years that humans have farmed, temperatures have been remarkably stable, at current levels or slightly cooler, and plants are finely attuned to this climate regimen.
Although it doesn't work exactly the same for each crop, a rough rule of thumb developed by crop scientists is that, for every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperatures above the mid-30s during key stages in the growing season, such as pollination, yields fall about 10 per cent.