Got a lot of blackberries? Then check out this recipe for Blackberry Mojito Fruit Leather.

I'm not a huge fan of fruit leathers, but this turned out super good! And, really, you can't go wrong with blackberries, mint and rum.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

My favorite comment of the day

From yesterday's post (regarding stripping the Endangered Species Act and further endangering polar bears, wolves and a whole host of flora and fauna to serve industry):

Actually global warming is a farce!

Oh and if nature is limiting/killing animals...why would we try and save them? Nature is taking into action it's own population we don't all get eaten...

Comments on this analysis, anyone?


cheflovesbeer said...

why should we take care of the animals? Perhaps because we too are animals.

Granola Gurl said...

wow....what a sad, sad, joke that website. Maybe you should do some real research, Latte. Keep up the good blogging, Crunch.

lae21 said...

Well, I guess global "warming" could be a farce, since not every area will be warmer; some will get colder, more rain, less rain, more extreme weather, different weather patterns. However, global "climate change" is very real and a very important issue to be looking and and studying.

And um...we're not all going to be eaten if we sustain healthy and natural animal populations. That's like saying if we didn't eat cows/chickens they would overrun the world and it would be mass chaos.

Michelle said...

Would you buy a home and then trash the hell out of it? How can all these tons of chemicals that we have mindlessly spewed into the air NOT affect such a delicate cylce as life on Earth?

Is anyone really that ignorant? Or is it arrogant?

I am not quite sure.

Mimi said...

Actually, because we eat cows and chickens their populations are greater than normal. We actually have a commensalistic relationship with them. Freshman ecology will tell you that. Mother Nature isn't trying to get rid of the "animals," just us.

TheOrganicSister said...

Mother Nature is not trying to get rid of us. It's trying to adjust to us, sadly.

I will say though, long before we came along (or started trashing the place) animals went extinct. Everything on earth has a cycle and sometimes the life cycle of a certain species ends.

I think what is important is that we are not the cause of any exctinction, which in most cases we are.

The comment on us being eaten is funny, though. As if a couple hundred (if that?) polar bears is going to annihilate the entire world population. As if wolves even want to come anywhere near us and don't avoid us like the plague. Nature is not enacting some kind of population control; we've stopped working within the confines of what is natural and it's beginning to show.

Anna Banana said...

It's what he has to tell himself to keep from changing the way he lives. And he has to try to mislead others to keep himself company.

fullfreezer said...

I believe that, apart from polar bears, most animals won't hunt and eat humans because we smell too bad. Now THAT'S a commentary on us as a species.

The Cooking Lady said...

I truly believe that our Earth goes through a normal cycle of freezing and warming. But I do not think anyone could deny(But I see they are) the fact that we as the human race are speeding up that process by leaps and bounds.

I may not see it and my children may not even see it, but the ramifications of our actions...not taking care of Mother Earth, will be seen sooner than later.

Robj98168 said...

We should take care of the animals because God put us here as caretakers of the earth. And boy, if god was an actual boss he would definetly fire us.

As far as Gloabal warming is a that website is a farce. A few scientists paid off by the bush administration to debunk the work of reputable men of science. Get a clue latte.

Jen said...

Whoo, yeah, global warming is a farce! It's freakin' cold today! I'm freezin my buns off! Those scientists just don't know what they're talking about.

That is, except for the 31,072 who illegibly signed in their names on the Global Warming Petition Project's mail-in card, and (honestly of course) checked the box corresponding to their degree level, thereby verifying beyond reasonable (scientific?) doubt the fact that 14,098 of those cards weren't sent in by one dude in his basement. THOSE scientists, the ones who don't know what the word "theory" means, those ones are definitely the right ones. Seriously, I'm really, really cold today.

mudnessa said...

i agree with cooking lady. it might be a natural thing, the temperature changes but we can't think that we are doing isn't having an effect. even if it is not as bad as what some may believe, i believe it is that bad by the way, how can it hurt to stop doing some of these things. here is a quote i include on all my emails and many other places and i love it . . .

So-called "global warming" is just a secret plot by wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it! founder and president Chip Giller

Allie said...

So I have to ask. Did I miss something? I am seeing a lot of really critical and mocking posts about other people here these days.

Is there a reason for this? I really love this blog (primarily for its general lack of judgmental posting that still is fairly informative on a broad variety of topics), but the newfound regular criticism of others is starting to wear on me a bit. It's starting to smell like l'eau de superiority a bit.

Mama2ce said...

That will be one strange day when animals start to eat us because we aren't polluting the earth enough to keep their population under control.... what a strange thing to say??

Crunchy Chicken said...

Allie - so, if someone criticizes me (like you are doing) or disagrees with something I'm saying, that's not considered taking a stance of superiority. But, when I do the same thing, it does. Hmm.

Well, if ~2 out of 36 posts over the last month constitues "a lot", I guess then I am guilty.

Someone left a comment that I wanted to open up for discussion. I disagree with everything she's saying. I'm assuming that any commenter would be willing to defend their position if they are willing to leave a comment.

I enjoy reading other perspectives on global climate change, so getting the comments so far on this post has been useful and educational to me.

The only post I consider to be judgemental of late was the one on the NY Times article. Otherwise, the rest I consider to be fair game. You may not agree with what I have to say, but please don't accuse me of doing something I'm not.

Allie said...


While you could consider my question to be one of superiority, it certainly was not my intent. I'm sorry if you viewed it that way. Evidently I've misconstrued your intent with some of these recent posts. Likewise, I believe you may've misconstrued my question. Which is what it was - a question, based on how I've perceived several of the recent posts. Not an accusation. Posing an accusation would require a level of attention and animosity toward your blog that I simply do not possess (as previously stated, I really do enjoy your blog most of the time). It would also imply I possessed some sort of facts, rather than what is simply my perception.

Again, if you were offended, I apologise. It certainly was not my intent. My intent was to try to find out why it *seems* as though there's been an *increase* in the number of posts where someone is mocked and/or denigrated.

As a complete non-sequitor, the coconut oil for condition really is "the shit." I use vinegar to wash my hair and I was worried that a vinegar wash wouldn't be a strong enough surfactant to get the oil out, but it came out just fine.

Crunchy Chicken said...

Allie - Actually I don't consider your comment to be sounding superior and maybe that's the problem. It's a difference in perception. What I was trying to point out was, why does my criticism = superiority, but yours does not?

I tend to look at everything with a critical eye and perhaps it comes off to others as being harsh when I don't intend it to be. My intent is to have an intellectual discussion regarding the topics that I bring up no matter how "hot-button" it is. Many of the topics tend to be emotionally charged, but I try to maintain an even balance in my own comments. I can't be held responsible for other's comments, though.

But, what was the purpose of your question, though? What could I possibly answer besides, "I'm feeling really bitchy lately"? :)

Either way, please let me know which posts you feel like I'm mocking or denigrating people besides the two I've mentioned because I'm really at a loss here. Politicians are, as part of the public domain, open for criticism as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad you are having good luck with the coconut oil. I've heard that other vinegar-only folks experienced the same success.

fernwise said...

Okay, I'm confused. I've reviewed 'old' blog posts - Crunchy is consistantly, uh, .... opinionated. Not always 'positive' in those opinions at that.

Allie, could it be that the difference is that Cruchy's opinion doesn't match your on a few things lately, while before her posts - wonderfully snarky at times - matched your internal snark?

In embracing my internal snark, and my internal pitbull and wombat, there is freedom. Come over to the snark side.... it is your destiny...

Stephany said...

The days when we can walk away from the type of ignorance displayed in that comment, are long gone.

Honestly, I don't think Crunchy's posts are over the top, she simply has an opinion and voices it.

I think that if it seems as though environmentalists (not just talking about Crunchy,here) are being more judgmental it is because there seems to be an increasing urgency to deliver certain messages.

I think some of us are just tired too. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for me to bite my tongue when I am working so hard to achieve certain goals just to make up for people who use ignorant statements like the one in that comment as an excuse to continue to make lifestyle decisions that are destroying the planet.

Young Snowbird said...

I agree with Allie on this one, Crunchy. Holding up Palin for ridicule, as you have done in past posts is one thing. Posting a comment by a reader and asking for others to comment is sorta like hoping to start a fight or see a big car crash.

The readers here like and trust you. Give some commenters some slack. If you want to see a fight, turn on the tv and watch some professionals pummel each other for money. Or hit some pillows or throw some snowballs. There are much healthier outlets. And your readers will feel safe to come back again another day.

Bitchy is ok. Ripping on your readers, in the long run, is not.

asrais said...

The comments are devolving from the original discussion to one commenting on Crunchy's choice of postings. Her blog, her choice of posts.

As for global warming being a farce. (hee if you put this into google, the actual site comes up first and then CC next). I tried to read the other side of the arguement a few months ago. My head ended up spinning after about an hour into the "global warming is a farce" reading.

Now, I live on the side where global warming isn't hard fact. I believe it's very likely to be true and in that vein, I try to be as "green" as I can.

The best thing I've seen is: it may or may not be true and we can chose to do something or not. If it is true and we don't do anything: GAME OVER, if we do something and it's true: hooray. If we do something and it's not actually happening, well we leave a cleaner planet for our children.

Whether we are causing the earth to speed up it's process, even just 6% (a number quoted to me by a disbeliever), well that's something we can control. Plastic and excess carbon is not natural, so in the interest of the future inhabitants: do what you can.

Crunchy Chicken said...

YS - I disagree with you a little bit on this one. The very act of leaving a comment on a post is in the hopes of airing your opinion and garnering additional comments as well. This isn't the first time I've taken someone's comment and made a post regarding it, albeit previous ones were generally making a point that I thought needed further exploration. And, I'd say the same thing here.

If this person's comment exposes a common belief or even a belief that represents only 10% of the population, isn't this something that should be discussed? If people are reading, and believing these sites (like the one cited here) then shouldn't that be addressed?

If you have something to say here, go ahead and say it. There have been dozens, maybe hundreds, of comments made on my blog in the past that I've found either horribly offensive or downright mean, but I don't call them out as I assume that people are adult enough to handle themselves. Doing that would be trying to start a fight.

Nobody forces a commenter's hand. I am of the mind that you can hold whatever opinion you like as long as you are able to uphold that opinion.

If having the willingness to listen to both sides of an argument and the flexibility to change your stance based on either solid evidence or a more convincing, rational, plausible or accurate argument, while holding your own opinion makes you opinionated then, I guess, I'm opinionated.

Now, I'm done defending myself on my choice of post material. I won't be commenting any more relating to that since it's unlikely I'll have anything new to add. That said, I'm not telling you that you can't continue the conversation but, as asrais states above, this is totally devolving from the original point of discussion.

Abbie said...

It seems like the arguments I made 5 years ago about evolution can now stand in for arguments about global warming.

It's scientifically proven, people!!!

Young Snowbird said...

Peace to you, Crunchy.

Mine is but the voice of one crying from the wilderness. Questioning not the topic of the post, but the manner of how it was presented. It is a topic worthy of discussion. I am on the side of "climate change is real" argument. Should I find it necessary to share those views with Latte, I'll go to Latte's website or email her directly.

Char said...

Latte: you need to do some more research. It's climate change.
We are not experiencing/going to experience 17 years of cooling.
I do not know where you got those stats.

and the part about us getting eaten by polar bears...HAHAHAH.
population control (in terms of over population) is not the issue here, there are not enough polar bears.
and even if there were plenty, chances are we would not all live in fear of being eaten.

Latte said...

Wow, when I got a lot of almost hate like comments on my blog I knew something was up...had no idea my comment would be in the spot light over here...kinda cool

Okay well I would like to say I totally was with the whole G.W. thing until about 4-6 months ago when my hubby mentioned he did not think it was true...being a real research person (looking for truth) I found many 'real' scientist (most who use their own money because no one will back them due to their idea's not being popular) and they have hard facts! If you really look into it you can't deny it. Global Warming is a theory...and a lacking one at that.

Oh...and the polar bear thing that was just a joke...I was just going off an older post on here about population control (something I oppose!) I don't think we as a culture need to get involved if it's a natural animal death though.

Oh and Abbi, Evolution..."it's scientifically proven" me! In the 10 years I have been looking for proof I have not been shown one shred of it.

I have to admit, it saddens me at the level of meanness that goes on with the green culture around this blog...I think everyone's attitudes need to get green...or get God.


Quoda said...

Wow... just wow... the level of ignorance is astounding.

Latte, I don't think the scientific word "theory" means what you think it means. It's not a guess or a stab in the dark. It's an idea based on a pattern of facts from experiments and observations.

And if you don't believe that evolution happens, by all means take antibiotics when you get a cold or flu. After all, bacteria don't possibly evolve antibiotic resistance.

Just goes to show that sometimes people can look facts right in the eye and still ignore them.

Greenpa said...

One of my most important teachers, who supposedly taught English, but actually taught us to think, was/is also a cranky curmudgeon, from time to time.

Most Zen masters also have that characteristic; using a good hard physical whack to the head, when other forms of logic fail to communicate.

My teacher recounted a conversation he was having at a neighborhood barbecue; where they were discussing some aspect of politics. His opponent, who had been bludgeoned by logic and Teacher's vast familiarity with history into a corner, resorted to the world famous "Well, I don't care what you say, I'm entitled to my opinion!" argument.

To which my teacher replied, "The HELL you are. You're an idiot. Shut up."

And he meant it. This, of course, is not the standard polite response to that argument, and the barbecue got very quiet, in shock. Opponent sputtered; "You can't say that! It's a basic freedom!" and Teacher replied,

"Why the hell should we be forced to pay any attention to your idiotic opinions? They have no value, no basis in reality, and are provably absurd. Just shut up. If you really want adults to pay attention to what you say- I think you should be required to show you can think like an adult. No- I DON'T think you have any RIGHT to foist idiotic nonsense on the world."

Teacher was, in fact, visibly angry, and the entire conversation pretty much ended right there, the barbecue wandering quickly off into discussions on "so how's your lawn doing?" and so forth.

I think, in fact, my Teacher was right. Sorry; no; morons to not have any "right" to force us to take them seriously. Just delete, and smile, I think.

Latte said...

I don't get this, because I disagree with you I don't have an opinion because you think it's stupid...on what grounds? In your research for truth, what have you found against global warming? Most are easily able to shun my idea, but NONE are willing to investigate...what a shame. How many of you really researched both sides? I know when my husband first told me he thought global warming was a farce, I laughed at sad! I have long since learned its a real good idea to investigate everyone ideas to see if they hold up. You guys don't seem to be doing that around here.


Bobby said...

Latte - wow! and you prove Greenpa's point, right off the bat! YOU didn't bother to even look up who he is, did you? - how about- an internationally known scientist? who's been going to global warming conferences since 1988? sweetie- you have no idea what the word "research means. It doesn't mean- read the handouts at church, and never look further.

*~*Laura*~* said...

quoda.. thank you.. i think what you said "Wow... just wow... the level of ignorance is astounding." is what needed to be said about lattes comment. When people post such comments you just feel sorry for them. It really does make you sigh and and say "wow."
Bobby... your comment was dead on too and crunchy.. your blog is perfect! It is here for you to do WHATEVER you want with it, and obviously you are doing something right or you wouldn't have so many people following your blog. You cant make everybody happy.

Latte said...

Are you people not listening? I feel like your not. Do the research that is on the side against Global warming...I double dog dare ya!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact that you guys are so quick to judge, and not do the research (scientists or not) shows me how little you really are in search for truth. I am saddened by this.

Oh and I did NOT get my info from a church hand out, and not the farce website...though some of my research is on his website...

I don't mind being called all the crap you guys are calling me, I just wish you had some facts to back it...I really do.


Latte said...

Quoda said: And if you don't believe that evolution happens, by all means take antibiotics when you get a cold or flu. After all, bacteria don't possibly evolve antibiotic resistance.

This is basic microevolution (factually proven) everything adapts to it's surroundings...that does not give any proof that it will one day be a bird (macroevolution). Dogs when bred will make many different dogs, but they won't make a cow. And there is not one shred of evidence that has been shown to me to prove this. What's really sad is a lot of scientists have been proven to have faked their macroevolution facts-proven and yet people still believe with not one shred of evidence. Sad!


Crunchy Chicken said...

Greenpa - True dat. Cranky curmudgeon? Maybe crunchy curmudgeon.

Laura - I know, but sometimes I try to please everyone.

Latte - Thanks for showing up and joining in. You ask for proof from us, yet provide none of your own against global climate change. The science is resoundingly in favor of global climate change. Please let us know what facts have so definitively changed your mind to the contrary.

Latte said...

I thought that website was good proof...but...that sounds good...I'll be back with will be a few days but I'll come back.

Thanks for asking me to, that is cool!


curiousalexa said...

Latte, thank you for being a part of this conversation. Yours is a viewpoint I don't get to hear very often. I found your statement "Dogs when bred will make many different dogs, but they won't make a cow" very thought provoking.

I cannot *personally* prove it, but I believe (due to science) that given enough time, simple organisms do evolve differently into a range of complex organisms. However complex organisms do not evolve into radically different complex organisms.

One of the major limitations of the human mind is the time frame involved in such evolution. Enough steps of microevolution leads to macroevolution. This planet has been around SO much longer than humanity, and I think we sometimes forget we are not the central focus of the world. (although I do think we are currently one of, if not THE, major impact on the world).

Mack said...

" What's really sad is a lot of scientists have been proven to have faked their macroevolution facts-proven and yet people still believe with not one shred of evidence."

Now there is why the people here do not take you seriously. That whole statement is absolute GARBAGE.

It's pure propaganda; lies; put out by - oh, liars.

LOOK IT UP. If you want to learn anything- check THAT statement out- find, please, ANY scientific journal making such statements. ANY place where scientists have been finding "faked data" on this point.

ANY. No, I'm not interested in statements from anybody working at Bob Jones Perversity. Give us ONE SPECIFIC instance. Good luck. There are none.

Check your statements- which you drop as absolutes- without every checking them out.

You're a babe in the woods, kid- you believe whatever they tell you. And you don't even know it.

Mack said...

curious alexa: "I found your statement "Dogs when bred will make many different dogs, but they won't make a cow" very thought provoking. "

yike. That's pure anti-evolutionist porn. Bull. Sounds reasonable, but a big lie. The same people will tell you "there ARE no neanderthals! There is no actual complete skeleton in existence; they're all made up!" And this is repeated as truth.

But it's a 99% lie- no, true no 100% complete neanderthal skeleton exists - just 1,000 or so that are 90% complete; missing a couple toes.

The fossil record is absolutely clear- you can see dog-things basically evolving into bears, dogs and- sea lions.

It's abundantly clear. Oh, yeah, though- the same people making up this crap will assure you that the fossils are just put there -by THEIR god- to confuse you.


LHT Rider said...

Latte - I admire your desire to examine this topic. I also would like to thank you for simulating me to think about why people have such strong reactions to your statements. I hope you find this useful as well.

From your comments, truth seems to be important to you. Yet by those same comments you do not appear to have educated yourself about one of if not THE most important tool we have to seek the truth, namely the scientific method. You have incorrectly used the terms theory and proof, as has been noted earlier.

You have made statements with flawed reasoning such as "'real' scientist (most who use their own money because no one will back them due to their idea's not being popular)". While politics can be a factor in research funding, the fact someone must fund their own research is not incontrovertible evidence that what they have to say is less biased or somehow more accurate. It suggests the very opposite, that they have insufficient data to support their arguments. Furthermore, to portray science as a popularity contest, implies a debasement of the field that is highly improbable.

Finally, when evaluating evidence and scientific opinions, you must also evaluate the credibility of your sources. The very name of the website you cite in support of your beliefs suggests less concern with objective evaluation of data than with spreading invective, as do the titles of the links provided on that site as "resources". e.g. "Oooo its hot out today... oooo there's hurricanes-must be global warming is true!" Sarcasm and belittling are inappropriate for serious dialog and frankly, not everyone's ideas are worth investigating.

My comments here are not intended to be a personal attack on you. Rather I have tried to provide some explanation supported by your comments as to why people have not responded positively to your belief that "global warming is a farce."

Latte said...

LHT Rider said...You have incorrectly used the terms theory and proof, as has been noted earlier.

Please tell me where? If I did I will correct it but I do not think I did. Someone mentioned all of science is a theory...but that is a misnomer, lots of science contains great facts. And disproving a theory...that is a fact. It does not mean it can be proven latter on in a different study...I will admit it's a touchy thing, but it's truth.

You also said:The very name of the website you cite in support of your beliefs suggests less concern with objective evaluation of data than with spreading invective, as do the titles of the links provided on that site as "resources". e.g.

I know a few of the scientist's on the website (no not personally) and they have great information-esp.Dr. Robinson.

Listen I was once Like you I don't just trust what I am told...not much anymore. I have looked at the facts, and I feel that we as a race do little to affect the weather. Now Our health...the environment, that is a whole other matter! I will blog about or write more on it in a few I am off to watch Brett Favre celebrate his win!


Allie said...


I said it was beginning to seem superior *to me* (your html-fu is way better than mine, so I have to use stars for emphasis), not that it is. Normally your posts are opinionated, but tend to be simultaneously open-minded and curious in their nature - or at least, that's how I read them. I love this writing style of yours, because although you typically do have strong opinions, you generally voice them in a way that leaves the validity of other opinions and ways of thinking in tact. In my perception, that wonderful "tone" has been less than I normally see. You yourself have also mentioned in the past that you make an effort to not seem superior - that effort is one I simply have not noticed as much.

Now, why does something you say read as superior whereas what I say doesn't? It's perception. I am aware that my intent is not to be superior, and not even actually to argue/have conflict. Others could perceive my comment as one of superiority and it would be reasonable to do so, as far as I'm concerned, because they might not know my intent. Likewise, I'm not in your head, so while you know your intent isn't to be superior, I didn't understand your intent and consequently I misread it.

The purpose of my question was genuine curiousity. I assumed you would give one of many possible answers, though the most likely ones in my mind were:

1. You're being a dumbass and misreading me.
2. I'm feeling bitchier than normal.
3. I'm genuinely curious if people see this the same way as I do
3a. If people don't see these things as I do, I'd like to learn more about why/what that is.
4. I was bored.

As for the specific posts, when I get through with all this canning I'm in the middle of (I'm elbow-deep in pears right now; all week I've been doing them between finals and work), I'd be happy to go through to find the ones that bothered me other than what I explain below. The ones that most stood out for me were the one about the woman in the Times, which you've already listed so you know that one was of concern to me (though in fairness, it's very difficult for people to discuss fertility issues without a tone of judgment to come into play - it's such a hot button issue); and this one.

This one mainly stood out to me because typically you approach environmentalism (and people who are unconcerned/dismissive of it) in a more sensitive manner that emphasizes education rather than mockery/amusement.

I can't imagine knocking you for the post about Bush. One of the greatest things about this nation is that we have the liberty to say whatever we like about the country and its leaders. Voicing opinions about how those leaders handle their positions is really more than a liberty, IMV - it's an obligation.

But yes; the coconut oil is awesome. I didn't actually get unfiltered - I just bought the 5 dollar LuAnn jar from Wal-Mart, but it's working beautifully.

I don't know if you do exfoliants either, but recently I've been making these sugar scrubs. I just take white sugar and mix light (I just buy the grocery store brand) olive oil just until it's saturated. Then add some essential oils and food colouring. It's beautiful and it rinses cleanly; also works well as inexpensive gifts for people. Just thought I'd share.

Allie said...


LOL re: dark side. God, I'm so snarky already (or so my boyfriend is routinely telling me), I really do try to just keep it under control.

In all honesty though, I don't think the issue for me was a lack of agreement. There are things I don't agree with CC about; I just don't usually comment on it because I don't think it's important. This comment was simply made out of curiousity, albeit poorly articulated curiousity.

The fact that I can disagree with things CC says, but still enjoy reading her writing, and enjoy dialogue with her/other commenters is one of the things I love most about this blog.

Young Snowbird,

This is what I was trying to say. You are far better at voicing my opinion than I am. ;) Thanks.

Anonymous said...

While we can argue both sides of the coin, neither side can definitively say it is right. Of all the comments left here, I think Asrais said it best: "The best thing I've seen is: it may or may not be true and we can chose to do something or not. If it is true and we don't do anything: GAME OVER, if we do something and it's true: hooray. If we do something and it's not actually happening, well we leave a cleaner planet for our children."

While freezing our buns off may make good cocktail hour fodder, and may make us feel better about ourselves, what does it really accomplish? Real change cannot come from one or two people acting alone, but must come from governments acting together to make the world a better place. If we really believe that our actions are damaging the environment, then we must petition our governments to fix the problem. We must run for office, no matter how small, so we can effect change.

Lastly, I think we give ourselves WAY too much credit here. Take a look at Pripyat, Russia to see exactly how strong and resilient mother nature really is. If ever there was a man made catastrophe to destroy the environment, that was it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Bad link. Head here instead:

Any of the Chernobyl tabs on the left side will provide some pretty fascinating photos.

Char said...

Latte:'re entitled to your own opinion.
but check out this link:

Carmen said...

Crunchy: I think by telling us up front in the comment line that your blog is slightly irreverent - you're allowed to be slightly irreverent :)

Anyway, on the topic. To me, Climate Science is a lot like Economics. Almost by definition it is about the past. We don't know what happened until after it happened and we don't know why it happened until WELL after it happened.

While lots of Climate Scientists (and Economists) try to predict what will happen in the future - they are very rarely successful at doing so.

I don't know if the Climate will grow warmer or more toxic to us in the future. But, isn't it better for us to take care of this place? I'd rather do that.

bhammeg said...

I'm late to the conversation, but I have to comment on one part. Latte asks us to "do the research on the side against global warming." It is not research if you have already decided which way you believe and you search for supporting evidence to back yourself up. You WILL find it, whether or not it's truth. At this point, even most of the naysayers are admitting that human activity impacts the environment on a global scale. Anyone not on board with that might as well still believe that the world is flat, in my opinion.

Latte said...

bhammeg said...Anyone not on board with that might as well still believe that the world is flat, in my opinion.

Oh dear God, are you serious! Okay I will admit that anyone can find their own truth in anything. The polls during the election are a good point to that fact. But in this case a lot of the scientist have facts (not a version of truth)...a lot of them. So don't give me this 'your version of truth', I havez my facts!

Yes of course I will admit we impact our bodies and others negatively. Cancer and Autism are great examples of what we are doing to ourselves. But to use the scare tactic of G.W. is crazy, and a political agenda I don't want to be apart of. I hope to post on it later today.


Neo@ said...

I read you at Churchy, who is not my heroe, and then get into your blog. I would like to say that lots of us, dont belive that GW is the right therm, but Climate Change might be, and a fact is that is happening, and there are a lot of theories of why is it happening, and most of all point at the human, so while the theory haven't been clearly substituted by a new one clearly accepted, there's no point on reject it, besides in who would you trust?. The world is full of theories and lacs of facts.

Kyerin said... we don't all get eaten...

...Seriously? *Mental image of polar bears pillaging downtown Manhattan*

Latte said...

Well I finally got to posting it, though I bet most won't be happy because it means digging into a lot of info on scientists websites. But that is how and where I go my info so if you are looking to know both sides to this coin please dig away.


Abbie said...

Wait... Am I supposed to prove evolution in a blog comment? Or was that global warming? Yeah I'll just say what I say to my students: Do the research and make your own decision.

Latte said...

Abbie said..."It seems like the arguments I made 5 years ago about evolution can now stand in for arguments about global warming.

It's scientifically proven, people!!!"

Latte Said...well you brought it up! I just thought while I was DISproving one, why not the other. And if you have done the research (looking at both sides) then I just don't see how you can believe in Evolution or Global Warming...I just don't understand it.

Heather said...

If your only evidence against evolution is that the Bible says so, this argument is over. And I haven't seen much evidence against climate change either, just a lot of rhetoric. Next you are going to tell me the Earth's magnetic field doesn't reverse on itself every quarter of a million years.

Alicia said...

Global warming is not real. At least in the vein that it is caused by emmisions. It is true though that the suns magnetic rays are weakening, causing stronger UV rays to escape. Also, the earth's orbit is getting closer to the sun.

Crunchy Chicken said...

Alicia - Thanks for your comments, but I fail to see how your statements contribute to your argument. Can you please provide a specific source on "It is true though that the suns magnetic rays are weakening..."?

As for the Earth getting closer to the Sun, what are you referring to (source again, please)? I'm assuming you aren't talking about the Earth's elliptical orbit here.

Latte said...

nope, my website that I gave you (while Christian) can prove against evolution.

Also, how do you know the Earth's magnetic field doesn't reverse on itself every quarter of a million years-there is NO proof of this!


Quoda said...

Latte, dear, have you ever heard of "rocks?" They are magnificent proof of the changes in earth's magnetic field.

Study geology. And I mean take a real, university geology class. Better yet, take a class in biological evolution. As I was discussing with a friend last night, it is fine to discuss differences of religious belief and understanding relating to scientific discoveries, but if you do not know enough about the science you will look the fool.

I accept evolution. I do not "believe in" evolution because it is not a belief system, a philosophical idea, or a theological idea. One doesn't "believe in" science. I believe in God and I believe he created the universe. I also accept that evidence has been clearly left that shows much of his mechanism for creation. My Baptist University professors could explain the fundamentals of biological evolution and why the geologic and stellar evidence alone shows that the earth is an old, old place. They didn't see this is a crisis to their faith or a reason for God to be "less God" than he is.

I get extremely frustrated when Christians choose to be ignorant of facts. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard falsehoods spouted as "evidence against" evolution. Latte, you ask us to research the "other side," but you are not practicing what you preach.

Science and religion are tools. Used rightly, they can shine light and bring new knowledge. Used incorrectly and they can cause destruction. You don't swat flies with a sledgehammer: it's the wrong tool. You don't prove God, who is supernatural, with science, a tool for observing the natural. Likewise, while religion can give a deeper appreciation of the natural, it is not an appropriate tool for observing nature and attempting to explain the patterns you observe.

This is a long comment, so I'm signing off here... just asking any other religious folks out there to please, please consider the possibility that science is not your enemy and that vehement ignorance is destructive and divisive.

Happy new year!