Any thread that offers the opportunity to mention Roger the Schrubber brings joy to my world, so a heartfelt NI!! to you, too, sir.

Those who hear them seldom live to tell the tale.

We must appease the Goracle with ………

A SHRUBBERY!!!!!!!!
(loud minor chord)

Yeah, except livestock are a major GW driver (CH4, CO2, etc.) which may mean that Bush had to increase the GW gases to decrease the GW gases.

jaychandra on August 28, 2007 at 2:49 PM

GW gases? Global Warming, or George W.? Or both? The dots have now been connected. The evidence was right before our eyes from the beginning. How could we have been so foolish.

I’ve seen some studies, and “our part” is a 96% reduction in all CO2 from all sources. Sure you’ll lose heating for your house, electricity, and automobiles; but we’ll keep this grassland area shrub-free… and isn’t that what matters?

So, lets go back to pre-industrial agrarian farming communities with no mass communication, global trade, or economic growth. Because nothing shows a forward-looking policy more than taking civilization back four or five hundred years.

Who’s with me?

*crickets*

Hey, that’s what the Discovery Channel calls it:Aug. 28, 2007 — Rising carbon dioxide levels are almost certainly fueling the encroachment of shrubs on global grasslands, a trend that could eventually jeopardize the use of these lands for cattle……

think naked gun

Bush is intentionally letting CO2 levels rise to give the shrubs the upper hand. That’s why he didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol. When he’s not as dumb as a stump, he has the devious mind of a super-villain.

Is this also why Clinton didn’t sign?

With carbon dioxide levels projected to increase sharply by the end of the century, the findings have serious implications for the management of these open rangelands which cover about 40 percent of the Earth’s surface and are typically used to support livestock, the authors of the paper said.

I always like to read global warming screeds because they’re packed full of bona fide scientific facts.

Take the one above as an example. If 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, and 40% is covered with open rangelands; what?, that leaves maybe 110% left for mountains, forests, wetlands, tundra, ice pack, desert, etc.

It also points out that there are existing mechanism that regulate atmospheric CO2 levels, thus reducing the possibility of run away green house warming.

It also points out the myth held by liberal leftists that the environment is, what ever it is, at the time the liberal first noticed what it is, and that it never changes, except for human behavior.

(Ask a forester about ‘succession’)
Review the recent news from liberal environmentalists about Illinois grasslands reverting to forest because of the lack of grazing animals.

By the way, women and minorities will be disproportionately affected.

Remember tin foil brigade folks. Bush. Is. Everywhere.

I’m sure we’ll get the entire Artemisia frigida fascist plot exposed in Loose Change 3: Shorter, Dumber and Now Ignoring The Twin Towers Altogether.

HAHA!!