{"id":17518,"date":"2010-06-03T11:54:26","date_gmt":"2010-06-03T17:54:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=17518"},"modified":"2016-01-14T14:46:28","modified_gmt":"2016-01-14T21:46:28","slug":"warmings-bogus-this-i-know-cause-the-bible-tells-me-so","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2010\/06\/03\/warmings-bogus-this-i-know-cause-the-bible-tells-me-so.html","title":{"rendered":"Warming’s bogus, this I know, ’cause the Bible tells me so"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"creationism-2\"<\/a>Most preachers get understandably ticked off when people use science to “prove” that faith, God, religion, and all that is bunkum, delusion, biochemical tricks and psychological folderol. What makes them think, then, that using religion (for example, the Bible) to “prove” anything about science is going to be any more welcome, fitting, accurate, or accepted?<\/p>\n

Especially when it’s so darned silly.<\/p>\n

Meet the Answers Research Journal<\/a>, a very scientific-sounding publication … produced by a group called “Answers in Genesis,” which basically says that …<\/p>\n

… well …<\/p>\n

… the Bible is literally true, and not only is it the answer (in unmistakable black and white! (except for Red Letter editions)) to every moral <\/em>question, but to every scientific <\/em>question, too. Or, as they put it:<\/p>\n

Answers Research Journal<\/em> (ARJ<\/em>) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s professional! (As opposed to amateur.) It’s peer-reviewed! (Other people who believe the same thing read it.) It’s technical! (They use long words.) It’s interdisciplinary! (They apply the Bible to every subject.) It’s scientific! (They talk about science.)\u00a0 It’s relevant! (They relate the Bible to every subject.)\u00a0 It has a framework! (And everything is neatly framed within it.)<\/p>\n

The relevant part here, of course, is “the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood.”\u00a0 Everything the ARJ publishes is based on the idea that (a) the world was created about 6000 years ago, and a few thousand years after that, there was a big Flood. With Noah. And an Ark.<\/p>\n

And, today’s topic of interdisciplinary Young Earth \/ Old Testament interdisciplinary science?\u00a0 A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming<\/a> by Rod J. Martin, an “Independent Researcher” who lives in Santa Clarita, CA (ironically, a damned hot place) — wherein we learn how Al Gore makes Baby Jesus cry.<\/p>\n

Official citation: Answers Research Journal <\/em>3 (2010): 91-106, ISSN: 1937-9056 (darned professional-looking that, ain’t it?)<\/p>\n

(Yeah, I know I shouldn’t devote this much time to something this trivial, but … these guys just irk the bloody hell out of me.)So, of course, we need to start with an abstract:<\/p>\n

Media coverage of global warming has been increasing for over twenty years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s all the media’s doing, you know.<\/p>\n

Major proponents include the United Nations, politicians, environmentalists, and celebrities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Um … Scientists? Climatologists? Lots, and lots, and lots of, um, Scientists from various disciplines?\u00a0 Nah, obviously not — it’s all about the kookie celebrities and tree-hugging environmentalists and power-mad politicians and … of course … the Black-Helicoptered One-World-Ordered Godless Anti-American United Nations.<\/p>\n

Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Actually, a fair number of church folks, including some evangelicals, have talked about climate change in Biblical terms.\u00a0 Just not … the way the ARJ chooses to.<\/p>\n

This paper will identify the major goals of global warming advocates, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because it’s all about Nefarious Purposes and Plots.<\/p>\n

… propose a biblical (young-earth creationist) framework for evaluating the issue, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"creationism-6\"<\/a>After that, they’ll discuss how the Council of Elrond would have evaluated the issue.<\/p>\n

… and highlight basic scientific data related to the alleged claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At least the basic data that matches the ARJ’s Biblical pre-conclusions.<\/p>\n

It will be shown that the Bible provides sufficient counsel to enable Christians to evaluate the claims of global warming and arrive at a confident position that is in accord with real science.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How about Numbers 14:32<\/a>?\u00a0 Oh, wait, I’m getting ahead of myself …<\/p>\n

The contention that man\u2019s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2<\/sub>).<\/p>\n

You can believe it, because it’s Biblical!<\/em><\/p>\n

I could write for pages and pages on this article because it’s … just … so zany.\u00a0 Let me see if I can boil it down to\u00a0 some particularly egregious examples.<\/p>\n

Proposed secular solutions to the alleged claims of global warming will directly impact everyone who depends on fossil fuels for their current life style. The issue of global warming presents biblical creationists with an opportunity to demonstrate not only the efficacy of Scripture in addressing life\u2019s issues, but also to show how ignoring Scripture leads to unnecessary, expensive, and harmful actions. Global warming is an arena where the battle between biblical truth and evolutionary untruths is currently raging,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Are Christians supposed to prove that Scripture is right because it … saves everyone money?<\/p>\n

Exactly why are global warming advocates so concerned about burning fossil fuels and the harvesting of forests? It must be kept in mind that global warming advocates are predominantly evolutionists. Al Gore readily admits that he is an evolutionist (Gore 2006, p. 160). Accordingly, they believe that there was a time in the distant past when earth\u2019s atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of CO2<\/sub> (over 21%) and no oxygen (O2<\/sub>). They believe the earth\u2019s atmosphere developed O2<\/sub> only as a result of photosynthesis by plants or bacteria (Bergman and Renwick 2003, p. 137). Advocates believe that forests, especially tropical rain forests, are the largest reservoir for storing carbon and generating oxygen on land. This helps explain their strong desire to protect rain forests. From an evolutionary perspective it is easy to see why preserving forests and reducing CO2<\/sub> is important, even if the projected catastrophes are unfounded or exaggerated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Does this actually make any sense?\u00a0 Al Gore is an “admitted” evolutionist … and that makes it easy to see why he wants to reduce CO2<\/sub>?\u00a0 It certainly sounds damning, but … huh?<\/p>\n

The Bible provides frank and absolutely reliable direction for every moral issue experienced by mankind. The biblical position on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality are clear to those who accept the inspiration of Scripture and who understand the straightforward implications of Scripture on these issues, but other issues require thoughtful study of Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wait — why is it that it’s “frank” and “absolutely reliable” and “straightforward” on, say, homosexuality (or the moral implications thereof) (and, frankly, not so much so depending on with whom one discusses the matter), but other issues like global warming require “thoughtful study”?<\/p>\n

This paper accepts the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible (all of the words in the original manuscripts are inspired), and follows a literary interpretation protocol. Passages dealing with the Creation, the Flood and the tower of Babel are treated as narrative in keeping with the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a very verbose (but professional \/ scientific-sounding) way of saying, “We believe all the words and stories in the Bible are literally true, happened just as described, and therefore can serve as premises for any conclusions we care to draw.”<\/p>\n

\"creationism-5\"<\/a>I will be honest in saying I am not a Biblical literalist.\u00a0 I do, in fact, believe that the Bible was put together through blending of various oral traditions, clerical editing, political propaganda, and, perhaps, some divine inspiration (the Old Testament in particular, though we know much more about the formation of the New Testament and how it was anything but divine dictation).\u00a0 To suggest that it is the actual, literal, scientific truth in how it describes various events, in particular the creation of the world, not only is unsustainable based on the evidence, but therefore requires one to selectively ignore, distort, or dismiss the evidence.\u00a0 That’s not in keeping with the truth (which ought to be the foundation of any science, as well as of respect for the Creator).<\/p>\n

The Bible-science movement is keenly interested in determining the original intent of biblical passages. A joint study by the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research called Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth<\/em> (RATE) illustrates this point. The study team included a Hebrew scholar, Dr. Steven Boyd, whose task was to determine if the Genesis creation verses are narrative or poetry, a critical question. If the passages are poetry then they merely illustrate a spiritual truth, but if they are narrative then they describe real events and real people. Dr. Boyd determined that Genesis 1:1<\/a><\/cite> to 2:3<\/cite> is narrative with a 99.996% probability at a 99.5% confidence level (Vardiman et al. 2005, p. 690).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Why are “spiritual truths” so downplayed here?\u00a0 I suspect because they are open to interpretation and the dictates of the conscience, whereas if it’s asserted to be all Literally Real and Granite-Clad Truth of What Actually Happened, then the ARJ can feel scientifically justified <\/em>in imposing their moral beliefs.<\/p>\n

I will confess that I have not read Dr. Boyd’s work, but it seems … improbable, despite all the 9s (though, can one actually get into Heaven with only a 99.5% confidence level?).\u00a0 I will try to look it up some day, I promise.\u00a0 (I’m not quite sure why a Hebrew scholar was part of a joint study on radioisotopes, but …)<\/p>\n

The Bible does not speak directly about what we call global warming.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But … but … I thought it offered “frank and absolutely reliable direction” for all moral topics!<\/p>\n

In Genesis 1:1<\/a><\/cite> we are told that \u201cGod created the heavens and the earth.\u201d Creation obviously includes the atmosphere. In fact, if the atmosphere was not created on Day One, it certainly was in place by Day Two when God \u201cseparated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse\u201d (Genesis 1:6\u20138<\/a><\/cite>). This \u201cexpanse\u201d was the atmosphere in which the birds flew on Day Five. Regardless of the exact day, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, let’s not quibble over which day the atmosphere was created.\u00a0 Though one wonders, again, why some Bible Science truths are self-evident and others are not.<\/p>\n

… the central biblical point is that the atmosphere was created, it did not evolve. The atmosphere was intentionally designed and created by God to support life, including plants, animals, and mankind, which He subsequently created. Contrary to evolution theory, the atmosphere is not a constantly changing mixture of gases, which billions of years ago were poisonous to life but now has evolved to the point where it can support a precarious array of life. The original created atmosphere contained the right amount of CO2<\/sub> for the plants that would be created on day three and sufficient O2<\/sub> for the soon to be created animals and mankind. This is a far different atmospheric history than the evolution story. A created atmosphere has purpose, stability, and is more robust than a randomly evolved atmosphere.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So the atmosphere can’t be heating up due to human interference because it was Created by God with “purpose” and “stability.”\u00a0 QED.\u00a0 Thus endeth the lesson.\u00a0 Assume Genesis is real, and (assuming also that one understands God’s purpose and plan, hubrists that they are) you can dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with it.<\/p>\n

Aside from all the other reasons for which God may have created plants, the Bible specifically states that He made them for human and animal food, and this is largely being ignored by global warming advocates (Genesis 1:29\u201330<\/a><\/cite>). Since all animals and mankind were vegetarians originally, plants were created as a reliable and sustainable source of food. As people began eating meat, they became even more dependent on vegetation as a source of food because the animals we eat all must consume multiple pounds of vegetation for each pound of meat produced.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This passage (and the paragraphs that follow it) establish the idea that, since God (a) created plants to be eaten, and (b) God made humans rulers of the world, it is therefore (c) okay (not a moral issue) to cut down forests to plant crops (“As the human population increases then it is reasonable to convert forests to the production of food and building material”).\u00a0 We shouldn’t be “wanton” and wasteful about it, but worries about forests and carbon sinks and all are pish-tosh — God never told Adam to preserve the Amazon, after all.<\/p>\n

Genesis 2:11\u201312<\/a><\/cite> identifies the location of gold, resin, and onyx. According to Genesis chapter 4, later generations raised livestock, developed musical instruments and worked with bronze and iron. God never rebuked mankind for mining, farming, ranching, or cutting trees for building projects. All of these activities are part of man\u2019s God-given rule over the earth. Throughout Scripture, however, God has repeatedly rebuked man for disobedience to His moral commands. Eating the forbidden fruit resulted in God\u2019s curse on both man and creation. Man\u2019s wickedness in the days of Noah resulted in God destroying all air breathing creatures and men, except for the few saved on the ark. The Flood also entirely reworked the surface of the earth. Following the Flood, God confused man\u2019s languages because, among other things, mankind lingered in Mesopotamia rather than filling the earth as commanded. This resulted in various language groups slowly migrating around the earth. When Israel disobeyed God\u2019s moral commands he sent them into exile and allowed their land to grow over with thorns. Using earth resources for the benefit of mankind has never been a moral issue. Ignoring God and disobeying His commands is a moral issue.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Conclusion: environmental concerns (including climate change) have no moral component.\u00a0 Gay marriage? An abomination.\u00a0 Cutting down the California Redwoods to farm okra?\u00a0 Biblically sanctioned dominion of the planet.\u00a0 Got that?<\/p>\n

\"creationism-3\"<\/a>See, this is where a heathen like me would say, “The Bible doesn’t address environmental care because it wasn’t a priority for the writers or inhabitants of the areas described; for the most part, their agricultural practices were sustainable because people who did otherwise died out (as we can see in various archaeological studies).”<\/p>\n

The Bible Science Literalists just say, “God doesn’t mention it in the Bible, so it must not exist (or, conversely, must be okay, depending on whether it’s something they approve of or not).<\/p>\n

And that, of course, is the even bigger trap. Because their Biblical literalism is both inspired by and colored by what they want <\/em>to be true.\u00a0 This lets them come up with an interpretation of what the Bible is actually saying that meets their emotional desires and justifies them — which then lets them go on and apply those desires to the rest of science, having “established” that the Bible is the literal truth that matches them.<\/p>\n

The year-long Genesis Flood (Genesis 7:17\u20138:9<\/a><\/cite>) buried great volumes of plants and animals. During the Flood there were 40 days and nights of heavy rain, and the fountains of the deep were open for 150 days. These flows added significant volumes of water to the existing ocean. It is reasonable to assume that more water was added to the ocean from the fountains of the deep (150 days) than from rain (40 days). Water from the earth is warm. The average geothermal gradient is 1\u00b0 F (0.6\u00b0 C) for each 60 ft (18.3 m) of depth (Landes 1959, p. 169). The deeper this water originated, the warmer it would be. The Flood likely increased the temperature of the ocean. As we will see later, a warm sea following the Flood helps explain another important post-Flood phenomena, the ice age.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note the copious use of of numbers (with a citation or two) to make things look Scientific and Professional.\u00a0 Bottom line, “See, God already warmed up the climate during the Flood, and humanity survived (well, a few of them did, but the rest were all bad), so even if temps are rising a bit, it’s no worry.”<\/p>\n

It is important to recall that during the Flood all land plants were destroyed, yet there was sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere for all life on the ark to breath. After the Flood plants again began growing and covering the earth, just as they did at Creation. At Creation and immediately after the Flood, plants were just beginning to cover the earth yet there was no shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere. God established enough oxygen in the original atmosphere to sustain life throughout the duration of the earth. This highlights the fact that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, if you take the Bible story of the Flood as literally true, there were only a handful of humans (and an ark’s worth of animals) to use up the oxygen still in the global atmosphere, so that’s hardly a test that “plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.”<\/p>\n

Plants buried in sedimentary rocks during the Flood now exist as fossil fuels (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002, p. 10). Coal, oil, gas, tarsand, and oilshale are all partially decomposed plant material. When fossil fuels are used today in furnaces and engines we are burning plants that lived and grew prior to the Flood. The CO2<\/sub> released during burning was taken from the pre-Flood atmosphere and ocean. Even secular scientists acknowledge that fossil fuels are remains of past plants and burning them releases energy stored long ago (Northen 1968, p. 71). The argument over burning fossil fuels versus ethanol can be reduced to a question of whether it is best to burn old plants or new plants. Burning old plants (fossil fuels) is much more efficient, and therefore \u201cgreen.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What?\u00a0 What?\u00a0 We’re not adding CO2 <\/sub>to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels because it was once already in the atmosphere before those plants died in the Flood?\u00a0 What?\u00a0 Therefore burning fossil fuels is, by definition, “green”?\u00a0 What?<\/p>\n

Crikey, that paragraph is too crazy to parse.<\/p>\n

Following the Flood, God assured Noah that there would be no other worldwide water catastrophe as long as the earth remains (Genesis 8:22<\/a><\/cite>). According to this promise, \u201cseedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.\u201d Along the same line, Peter mentions that in the last days people will say that \u201call continues just as it was from the beginning\u201d (2 Peter 3:3\u20137<\/a><\/cite>). Christ also mentioned that in the days prior to His second coming all would continue routinely, \u201cjust like in the days of Noah\u201d (Matthew 24:37\u201339<\/a><\/cite>). From these verses it appears that until the tribulation occurs no worldwide catastrophe will affect the earth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh, well, that’s a relief. Though, of course, the Matthew passage mentions that people will be “giving and taking in marriage” just like in the days of Noah, and I’m sure most of the folks at the ARJ are appalled at the widespread changes in marriage law (gay marriage, divorce, heck, maybe even interracial marriage) that have come about in the last half-century.\u00a0 (Or they might suggest that since all the folks in the days of Noah were evil enough to be destroyed, we’re just returning to that status quo.\u00a0 Gah! Can’t win when they keep changing the ground rules!)<\/p>\n

But what about the “tribulation”?<\/p>\n

Global warming is described as a worldwide catastrophe by the radical environmentalists and the media.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See, it’s all just the “radical environmentalists” (who are, by definition, amoral) and the media.<\/p>\n

The tribulation of Revelation certainly contains events that sound like some of the dire predictions associated with global warming. Unlike global warming, the tribulation is initiated directly by God, as judgment on sinful mankind, and is a sudden, not a gradual change. People undergoing the tribulation realize that it is from God, as a result of their sinful behavior, but they intentionally refuse to repent. We should not confuse the claims of global warming with tribulation events.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I defy any two people to come up with the same coherent and consistent literal reading of the end times in Revelation, sufficient to be able to clearly state what what it would or wouldn’t be like.\u00a0 Go ahead.\u00a0 I dare you.<\/p>\n

God is in absolute control of His creation. He is the Creator (Genesis 1 and 2). God destroyed His creation in the days of Noah with a worldwide flood (Genesis 7\u20139). God sets the boundary for the seas (Job 38:8\u201311<\/a><\/cite>, Psalm 104:9<\/a><\/cite>, Jeremiah 5:22<\/a><\/cite>) and controls the weather: lightning (Job 28:26<\/a>, 37:3<\/a><\/cite>), hail (Job 38:22<\/a><\/cite>, Psalm 147:17<\/a><\/cite>, Haggai 2:17<\/a><\/cite>), rain (Job 28:26<\/a>, 37:6<\/a><\/cite>, Psalm 147:8<\/a><\/cite>), and snow (Job 37:6<\/a>, 38:22<\/a><\/cite>, Psalm 147:16<\/a><\/cite>). Someday God will destroy this earth and establish a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1<\/a><\/cite>). Man is not in control of the weather and this present earth is temporary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, again,\u00a0 disastrous climate change is impossible because “man\u00a0 is not in control of the weather.”<\/p>\n

Of course, natural disasters have occurred in the past that affected wide populations.\u00a0 And populations have caused ecological collapses and been wiped out.\u00a0 One can handwave these away and say that they were all “God’s will” and not man’s doing, or that they were cause by those populations’ sinfulness … but that just changes the perspective. The ARJ article wants to establish that the earth is static and under God’s control, but not only do they point out places where it is not static (the Flood) and that God can choose to do whatever He wants with the world — including, one would assume, anthropogenic climate change.<\/p>\n

In summary:<\/p>\n

As you can see, the Bible has quite a bit to say regarding atmospheric gases and plants. This biblical framework relates directly to our understanding of global warming and climate change. The atmospheric gases were created, they did not evolve. We should not expect the types of atmospheric gases to have been substantially different at creation than now. It is unlikely that the creation atmosphere contained any gases not present in the current atmosphere. Oxygen has obviously been present since creation and likely has increased as CO2<\/sub> decreased. The contribution to atmospheric gases by volcanoes from creation to the present is unknown. What is known, of course, is that CO2<\/sub> stored in plants and shelled animals that existed prior to the Flood is now stored in sedimentary rocks worldwide. The pre-Flood plants currently exist as fossil fuels and the shelled animals are contained in carbonate deposits. We also know that currently living plants and shelled animals have taken additional CO2<\/sub> from the environment. Consequently, in view of the massive volume of fossil fuels and carbonate rocks, it is highly probable that today\u2019s atmosphere contains measurably less CO2<\/sub> than the Creation atmosphere and a correspondingly higher O2<\/sub> concentration. Polar seas are quite cold today. In the years since the Flood, the warm worldwide ocean has gradually cooled at the poles. God created the earth for man\u2019s use. Man received a commission from God to manage the earth, including the plants and animals. This includes old plants and new plants. Man has the right to use earth resources for the benefit of mankind, but in a reasonable manner that honors God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"creationism-4\"<\/a>So, if you ignore all the other evidence, and simply extrapolate from a particular literalist view of the Bible (7 days, ribs,\u00a0 floods, Babel), then your conclusion from the Bible will show that the Bible lets you conclude some stuff.\u00a0 Whether that stuff is, in fact, real is not open to debate, given the premises assumed.\u00a0 That it represents science, though, is dubious.<\/p>\n

So the ARJ article then moves on to “science.”\u00a0 First off: “Glaciers aren’t actually retreating, because there’s no such thing as an ice age, so don’t worry!”\u00a0 I have to quote a lot because the argument is nearly impossible to summarize:<\/p>\n

As evidence that the earth is experiencing global warming, advocates point to melting glaciers around the world. Since this is the first and strongest argument offered by Al Gore, the United Nations, and other global warming advocates, it is appropriate to spend some time discussing glaciers. The glaciers remaining around the world are remnants of the once extensive ice age. Ice ages are poorly understood (Oberlander and Muller 1987, p. 479). Although numerous evolution-based theories have been advanced to explain how an ice age is initiated, none of them are satisfactory. The most popular theory at the moment is the astronomical theory. According to this theory, small changes in the earth\u2019s orbit, tilt and wobble combine approximately every 100,000 years to create a colder winter, especially at the poles (Dott and Batten 1988, p. 596). Proponents of this theory believe that if winters are colder then glaciers will grow and advance. Such conditions, if they actually occurred, would not start an ice age, but merely a cold-age.<\/p>\n

An ice age is characterized by thick, extensive, ice-sheet glaciers and advancing mountain glaciers. The indispensable ingredient for a glacier is lots of snow. Massive precipitation of snow requires massive evaporation of sea water. Massive evaporation only occurs from warm water. Water evaporation increases exponentially with temperature (Oard 1990, p. 5) (see Fig.1 ). So, an ice age requires warm seas in close proximity to the poles. The only viable explanation for an ice age has been clearly and thoroughly explained by Oard (1990). Warm seas worldwide following the Flood would provide optimum conditions for initiating the ice age. It would have been like lake-effect storms greatly enhanced. Oard, a meteorologist, estimated that 500 to 700 years would have been required for the ice age to reach its maximum (1990, p. 97). During this time, more snow would have been precipitated in the winter than would have melted in the summer. Consequently, the snow cover would have increased in thickness and lateral extent. As the polar seas cooled, less evaporation would have translated into less snow and eventually snowfall would equal melting, stabilizing the extent of glaciation. Further cooling of the seas would have resulted in more melting than snow accumulation and the glaciers would have retreated. Naturally, the glacial advance and retreat would have been somewhat erratic as yearly storm events varied in intensity. Today, the polar areas are deserts due to the cold seas. The high ice plateau of Antarctica receives only about one inch (2.5 cm) of precipitation each year. Even Gore acknowledged this fact (2006, p. 176). Today\u2019s precipitation rate does not allow sufficient time to accumulate the nearly two-mile (3.2 km) glacier thickness from a biblical time frame.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See! Even Gore admits that you can’t have an ice age if the world was created only 6000 years ago!\u00a0 The Bible Wins! The Bible Wins!<\/p>\n

Oh, and all those glaciers?<\/p>\n

As corroboration that huge volumes of glacial ice melted in the past, there is strong geologic evidence that ocean levels have risen several hundred feet (61+ m) (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002, p. 35). Obviously, all this melting occurred long before mankind began burning fossil fuels on a large scale. In other words, glacial melting has been going on for thousands of years and mankind was not the cause. Most of the melting, and subsequent sea level rise, occurred long before the recent increase in atmospheric CO2<\/sub>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See?\u00a0 Since there’s no such thing as “ice ages,” then glacial retreats are just a natural occurrence, the last gasp of excessive “lake effect” snowfalls after the Flood.<\/p>\n

I’ll skip over the parts of how CO2 <\/sub>cannot be a “pollutant” because levels in the atmosphere are far lower than mine safety regulations in the 1940s, and, besides which, it’s great for plants, which helps mankind!\u00a0 I’ll skip over the discussion of photosynthesis, too, since it’s only there to make more scientific diagrams … except to demonstrate that Planting Trees is Silly.<\/p>\n

During respiration O2<\/sub> is combined with sugar to fuel the plant\u2019s metabolism and CO2<\/sub> and H2<\/sub>O are emitted (Northen 1968, p. 83). When a plant dies the equation runs in reverse (respiration) during the entire decay process until all the O2<\/sub> previously emitted is recaptured and all the CO2<\/sub> is returned to the atmosphere (Northen 1968, p. 435). Over their life-cycle plants generate neither excess O2<\/sub> nor excess CO2<\/sub>. This is a zero-sum game, but with a lag-time measured in years.<\/p>\n

The implications of a plant\u2019s life-cycle are noteworthy. If over their life-cycle plants generate neither excess CO2<\/sub> nor excess O2<\/sub> then two conclusions follow: 1) plants did not generate the large volume of O2<\/sub> in our atmosphere, and 2) planting trees will not provide permanent carbon offsets. This, of course, agrees with Scripture. The atmosphere was created (it did not evolve) and plants were created as food (not a source of O2<\/sub>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Remember that — we don’t need plants for oxygen!\u00a0 God will provide!<\/p>\n

Some global warming advocates claim that climates were relatively fixed over the last 10,000 years until man started burning fossil fuels and affecting the world\u2019s climate. Is this really true?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Having set up the straw man, the article knocks it down.<\/p>\n

Climate has been dynamic since the ice age requiring plants, animals, and man to adapt. From a biblical time frame (Ussher 2003), the flood occurred about 2349 BC and the glaciers began retreating approximately 1850 BC (earliest estimate of ice age peak according to Oard, and also the time of the patriarchs).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’m sure we all remember the tales of Abraham and the fur-lined parka he wore.<\/p>\n

Many geologists believe that past ages were much warmer than historical times. Geological textbooks estimate some ages were as much as 25\u00b0 F (13.9\u00b0 C) warmer (Dott and Batten 1988, p. 593). This is evident when viewing museum dioramas, park displays and National Geographic shows. Past ages are shown as tropical or subtropical. This is because most fossil plants are tropical or subtropical. It should also be noted that the divisions between the geologic periods were initially based on mass extinctions. Many evolutionist geologists still support this theory. Creationists realize that most of the sedimentary rocks, and their included fossils, were deposited during the Flood, not over millions of years. Consequently, there really was only one mass extinction, the Flood. The tropical and subtropical plants assigned to the evolutionary geological ages were all living at the time of the Flood.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s not clear if the argument here is (a) things used to be warmer, so, see, global warming is harmless, (b) geologists disagree with climatologists, so teach the controversy, or (c) those wacky “evolutionists” who don’t realize all those fossils are from the\u00a0 Flood sure are zany!<\/p>\n

Note, by the way, that nobody’s suggesting (or certainly mainstream science isn’t) that climate change will increase warming beyond the ability for life on earth to survive.\u00a0 But rising sea levels, changed weather and current patterns, plant \/ fish \/ animal die-offs due to ecological shifts, and changes in agricultural capabilities, will all cascade together to majorly impact the global economy, as well as civilization (and will likely cost a lot more than efforts to combat it if taken soon enough).\u00a0 Sure, the Earth has been much warmer (and much colder) in the past; that doesn’t make it a good thing.<\/p>\n

We are told that global warming will increase both the frequency and severity of storms. Storms, however, are driven by the temperature difference between a warm equator and cold poles. This temperature difference sends cold fronts down from the north and warm fronts up from the south. Since northern and polar regions are the areas expected to warm the most from global warming, the temperature difference will decrease. Thus warming, if it actually occurred, would result in fewer and less severe storms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Is there a Bible citation for that crazy up-ending of climactic models?<\/p>\n

We are warned by Al Gore, and on the news, that global surface temperatures have warmed 1\u00b0 F (0.6\u00b0 C) over the past 100 years, and that it is now warmer than it has ever been in the history of the earth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, Al Gore has never said that “it is now warmer than it has ever been in the history of the earth.”<\/p>\n

The article then goes on to claim we can’t even measure the average temperature of the planet because we don’t have enough thermometers:<\/p>\n

The earth is huge. We simply do not have a sufficient number of collection points (weather stations) to accurately determine earth\u2019s average surface temperature. The problem is complicated by the seas. When approximately 71% of the earth is covered by ocean, but most of the weather stations are on land how can we truly know the temperature of the entire earth? The National Weather Service (N. W. S.) establishes standards for official weather stations (Leffler and Redmond 2004, p. 11). According to these standards, if a weather station is moved five miles (8 km), or 100 ft (30.5 m) in elevation, then it must be designated as a new station. In other words, the N. W. S. believes that an accurate determination of temperature over a large area requires a temperature measuring station at least every five miles (8 km).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Plus, of course, thermometers are faulty, cities get hot, weather reports are unreliable, tree rings are deceptive, you can only average temps to a single degree anyway, and since you can’t simultaneously measure the temperature everywhere around the globe, you simply might as well just throw up your hands and stone Al Gore.<\/p>\n

Given that reliable temperature records are a relatively recent event, and climates are constantly changing, we should expect temperature extremes to be regularly broken. Broken temperature records do not prove either global warming or climate change. They merely indicate that we have a small sampling of earth\u2019s temperature history. It is safe to say that even if we had accurate temperature records for the past 100 years it is impossible to know with confidence either the historical range of earth\u2019s surface temperature or if we have exceeded a safe level and are heading towards a disaster.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And, y’know, statistics are actually THE DEVIL’S MATH, which is why you should ignore them.<\/p>\n

What really is the significance of average surface temperature? People, plants, and animals live in areas where the average surface temperature is very cold and also very hot. Even if the surface temperature was accurately known it would have little real significance for global warming since the atmospheric layer in which heat is constantly being transported around the earth is six to ten miles thick (troposphere). Isn\u2019t the temperature of the rest of the troposphere important?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because it doesn’t make any difference if it’s 95F on the ground where people and plants and animals live if it’s only 40F 20,000 feet up.<\/p>\n

And so we come to the wrap-up.\u00a0 Climate change is bunkum, rejected by “basic science” as well as Scripture. Go ahead and buy that Hummer and cut down another thousand-acre swathe of the Amazon rain forest — God’s got your back.<\/p>\n

Not to say that there aren’t changes afoot …<\/p>\n

It can be expected that several trends evident since the Flood, however, will continue: sea level will rise as polar glaciers continue to melt, and deserts will expand. These trends, as we have shown, have little to do with CO2<\/sub>, they are a consequence of a God-ordained event, the Flood. Governments with either ocean boundaries or deserts should consider how to efficiently and economically address these trends.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Just build higher sea walls and stock up on bottled water.\u00a0 Oh, and, of course, pray.<\/p>\n

And in the “postscript,” we learn what “global warming advocates” have to prove:<\/p>\n