It's hardly surprising that you throw a little bit of global climate change denial rhetoric into the equation, with the "natural fluctuations" nonsense and the "Chicken Little," rhetoric. By doing this, you obviate what you're all about.
The term is rhetorically unoriginal (as is the idea that ethanol will save the planet). Typical of those who lack the mental agility to think of something more original than "Chicken Little" is the great corn state Senator, Jim Inhofe, who like you denies climate change.
This is has no bearing on whether waving one's hands and saying that "drought is not a problem," demonstrates that it
isn't a problem. It is a problem. Everybody on the planet except you and Jim Inhofe knows it's a problem. They certainly think that in Australia, and in the Sahel - not that you give a fuck about those places. I am not going to dignify your claim that drought is not a problem in the US with much more comment than to say that you don't know shit about the status of the Ogalalla reservoir either, being as intellectually lazy as you insist on being.
Here is a of some work someone known as a
scientist, not that you know very much about what such people
do, who is concerned about the impact of
corn on this crop:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=196119I have never thought that you were interested in what climate change is about, or that you know anything about the subject of energy and the environment, which is
why you spend so much time waxing so romantic on 0.22 exajoules of highly subsidized ethanol energy, a trivial and ineffective means of addressing the problem of climate change.
There is no definitive proof that ethanol is in fact anything more than short term resource
mining, mining the soil, mining the water, and mortgaging the future.
You are selling the planet,
for money.