Ken Ham: Chocolate and Climate Change

We are amazed at the range of subjects that have been mastered by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted Is Chocolate Going Extinct? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Better start stocking up! According to a new report [Chocolate May Be Extinct by 2050, According to Scientists], cacao trees — the plants that produce the cocoa beans used to make chocolate — will be extinct by 2050. You can probably guess the “why” behind this prediction: climate change.

If you read the article Hambo cites — in a travel magazine! — you won’t be very impressed. Anyway, he says:

Cacao trees require very precise conditions under which to grow. They will only grow 20 degrees north or south of the equator and need consistent humidity and rainfall. Due to their predictions about a warming climate, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration believe the areas in West Africa where over half of our cocoa beans are grown will warm by 3.8 degrees F, changing the conditions and possibly making cacao trees go extinct.

“Possibly” making cacao trees extinct. After that he tells us:

It’s interesting that these scientists (most of whom are evolutionists) note that cacao trees are very picky and fragile plants, yet, according to the evolutionary story, they’ve been around nearly 10 million years. So, in this view, they’ve managed to survive several ice ages and other major ecological changes, but a 3.8-degree change will make them go extinct? This is very inconsistent.

Silly scientists! He continues:

Our cultivated cacao trees aren’t nearly as hardy as wild, uncultivated varieties. In selecting for the traits we like in cocoa beans, we’ve weeded out a tremendous amount of genetic diversity. As AiG’s Troy Lacey and Avery Foley wrote about in 2015 [link omitted], some researchers believe tapping into this genetic diversity may make a hardier plant and even yield novel chocolate flavors.

Okay, now what? Let’s read on:

So will cacao trees end up extinct? We don’t know, of course. What we do know is that what you believe about the past determines how you interpret the evidence you study in the present. Those who believe in catastrophic, man-made climate change usually start with an evolutionary view of the past. [The fools!] They believe the climate has been relatively stable since the last ice age, supposedly [Hee hee!] about 12,000 years ago. So even minor climate change, they argue, is alarming and probably man-made.

That’s what the hell-bound evolutionists believe. What does Hambo believe? Here it comes:

Now climate change is real — it’s good observational science. [Huh?] But whether it’s primarily man-made or natural cycles of climate is an entirely different issue. When we start with God’s Word, we recognize we have a climate that was designed “very good” (Genesis 1:31) by God. Of course, just like everything, our climate is cursed and has changed since creation.

Aha — climate change was caused by Adam & Eve. We hadn’t heard that before. Another excerpt:

The global Flood of Noah’s day about 4,350 years ago led to incredible climate change, including the Ice Age that followed the Flood. [Which isn’t in the bible.] Things have been settling down since then, so we expect variations in climate.

And now we come to the end:

Your starting point impacts how you view the world — even when it comes to chocolate!

There you have it, dear reader — Hambo’s view of climate change. Impressive, isn’t it?

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Ken Ham: Chocolate and Climate Change

  1. Well,if Adam and Eve are responsible for climate change then climate change is “man made” no? 😉

  2. http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3861
    No – I’m not blaming Adam and Eve. Just the likes of Trump (and Ham) and all the hot air they produce.

  3. Clearly, this emphasis on cacao is part of his new AFRICA initiative where he can instruct his new targets with the way things REALLY are. OR, perhaps he is planning a vacation exploring Ghana or the Congo. OR, he may just be planning on stocking up his store in the main attraction with an ARK load of
    the new trademarked Hambo chocolate bar (complete with lots of nuts.)
    There are big business opportunities on the dark continent for those who are special and holy.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Ice age not in the bible, cacao not in the bible, climate change not in the bible, basic astronomy not in the bible, hominids not in the bible, dinosaurs not in the bible. Need I go on?

    I found a guy on Youtube who has coined this alternate version of the bible, Hammonism. Not as insulting as we’d like, but it seems appropriate.

  5. About things which are not in the Bible.
    There are those which are harmless, like the apple of Adam.
    There are there simple misreadings, like the Ark on Mount Ararat.
    There are gross misreadings, like the Earth being a sphere or in motion.
    And there are those which have no basis at all, like the burst of microevolution after the Flood.

  6. “They believe the climate has been relatively stable since the last ice age.”
    Note relatively. Then compare

    “So even minor climate change, they argue, is alarming and probably man-made.”
    It’s something we know – we have Ol’Hambo’s favourite kind of evidence for: testimonies. At the end of the 15th Century all the Viking colonies on Greenland were gone.

    “Impressive, isn’t it?”
    Yup – my impression that creationism explains and expects everything and anything, no matter how contrary, is totally confirmed.

  7. Ceteris Paribus

    Cacao trees? Cacao! Trees!
    Why is Ken Ham so upset about poor grimy Cacao trees with which to make chocolate when there are many much better confectioneries. Like goose grease and turpentine, which can be savored at much less cost. And it is a well known folk remedy for much of what ails a person.

  8. Like the old game of “telephone” or “Chinese whispers” it is interesting to me how the thesis of the original article is garbled until Hambo gets it, seasons it with a bit o’ Babble science and it becomes a dire “better stock up on chocolate” article. (And to be fair to Hambo, the cut and paste job of the travel article was very poorly done as well.)
    It isn’t hard to track back to the original conclusions of the article though.
    Here is what I peg as the original thesis:

    “In fact, Läderach and coauthors found that, of the 294 locations examined in the study, only 10.5% showed increasing suitability for cacao production; the remaining 89.5% were likely to become less suitable by 2050. The authors continued, “These changes in climatic suitability are predicted to take place over a time period of almost 40 years, so they will mostly impact the next rather than the current generation of cocoa trees and farmers. In other words, there is time for adaptation.”

    The conclusion is not for extinction, but emphasizes a direction for research and creation of new varieties of cacao. It is forward looking so that a preemptive solution can be derived before the crisis occurs. This is science as it is supposed to work and a vivid illustration of why creation science does not.