Answers Research Journal: "They blinded me with schmience!"

No shit. The day after...the very day after...the Onion runs a fake news segment stating that there is a debate about whether or not the Biblical apocalypse should be taught alongside global warming, Andrew "I-Cite-Myself-Because-Nobody-Else-Has-the-Balls-To" Snelling's personal vanity press, the "Answers" "Research" "Journal," belched another hilariously flawed article. How ridiculous do you have to be to be scooped by the ONION?

God damn, you guys are hilarious. It's like Darwin getting a letter from Wallace and realizing that he better hurry up and publish his own theory that little invisible angels pushing down on you are responsible for gravity.

The author? Rod J. Martin, independent scholar, self-contained failure. The article? A Proposed Bible Science Perspective on Global Warming.

Abstract? You asked for it.

Media coverage of global warming has been increasing for over twenty years. Major proponents include the United Nations, politicians, environmentalists, and celebrities. Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem. This paper will identify the major goals of global warming advocates, propose a biblical (young-earth creationist) framework for evaluating the issue, and highlight basic scientific data related to the alleged claims. 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. The contention that man’s 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).

Let's break this down for a second.

Media coverage of global warming has been increasing for over twenty years. Major proponents include the United Nations, politicians, environmentalists, and celebrities.

Did you notice who is left out? Like all climate scientists! C'mon, you are a shill for "Big CO₂," admit it.

Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem.

Well, I think it's odd, especially how they like to shoot their mouths off about everything. Maybe a quick online Bible search will reveal why people don't look at the Bible for global warming information:

The same goes for the search phrases "greenhouse gas," "ozone shield," and, interestingly, "birth control."

All right, dipshit. Let's have a go.

This paper will identify the major goals of global warming advocates, propose a biblical (young-earth creationist) framework for evaluating the issue, and highlight basic scientific data related to the alleged claims.

To avoid a worst-case scenario? Or even a distant-second-worst-case scenario? To avoid--THIS!!!!1!eleventy!!

The greenhouse effect has turned Venus into a slightly uncomfortable seething ball of hell. Why do the models that accounted for the clear, unambigious runaway greenhouse effect on Venus fail to apply on Earth? Anyway, I'm going to break with tradition and pick out "the major goals of global warming advocates" that Rod identifies:

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’s atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of CO2 (over 21%) and no oxygen (O2). They believe the earth’s atmosphere developed O2 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 is important, even if the projected catastrophes are unfounded or exaggerated.

Rod. Holy shit. You are an epic moron. Seriously. You are like the Achilles of retarded. Hold on. The last remaining polar bears want to tell you something:

There is so much wrong with that, not even I can generate enough profanity. So I'm just going to skull-fuck your logic for a minute.

You commit the ad hominem. "You can't believe these people because they are evolutionists." The fact that an evolutionist advocates something doesn't in itself mean what they are saying that it is not true. You are shooting the messenger, not dealing with the charge. Also, Rod, and I'm speaking as an evolutionist, walking onto a freeway at night is a great and relaxing way to enjoy an evening. You can trust me. And when you say:

Accordingly, they believe that there was a time in the distant past when earth’s atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of CO2 (over 21%) and no oxygen (O2). They believe the earth’s atmosphere developed O2 only as a result of photosynthesis by plants or bacteria (Bergman and Renwick 2003, p. 137).

I quote Animala:

"Meanwhile, in an especially oxygen-deprived section of Rod's prefrontal cortex, vaguely remembered facts leaked out." Fuck! That's not even a point you made! I too enjoy stringing together unrelated ideas, because pastries are warm sometimes.

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 is important, even if the projected catastrophes are unfounded or exaggerated.

Our strong desire to protect rain forest stems from our strong desire to breathe. Are you saying that O₂ is not a byproduct of photosynthesis? Yeah, well, look at this pretty picture:

It's official, people: the Answers in Genesis people have finally decided to protest air. There are, of course, other reasons to not destroy the rain forests, but whatever. In terms of carbon sinks, I'm more concerned about the oceans. When they warm, the surface evaporation picks up, and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, which warms and promotes, you guessed it, more evaporation, less ocean to sink CO₂, more CO₂ in the atmosphere. Before you know it, the planet earth shows up for the interplanetary fancy-dress party dressed as Venus.

The other thing that you haven't done is talk to an environmentalist. You just screamed, "Evolutionist!" and made up a story that doesn't make sense about what goes on inside the head of an environmentalist. It's a very shoddily constructed straw man. This was accepted somewhere? Fuck, blogger wouldn't take this.

Foundation for a biblical Interpretation

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. 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(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 to2:3 is narrative with a 99.996% probability at a 99.5% confidence level (Vardiman et al. 2005, p. 690).

Wow. An ad numeram. Most people aren't willing to make that logical fallacy, but you totally went there. Clearly Snelling sees something in your bold disregard for your own reputation that he recognizes in himself. Throwing out meaningless numbers doesn't help your argument. Next, Dr. Boyd is still going to hell because he has .004% doubt. Third, why can't verse also be narrative? Next, Harry Potter is a narrative, so by your logic the characters and events must also be real. Lastly, intentional fallacy big time up near the top. Big horrid thought disaster there, boy-o.

Rod, I feel like I should be throwing you some sort of benefit or fund-raiser so you can get an education. You are depressing disaster, and even I feel bad for you. Almost. I'm done with you.

HJ (with props to Animala for that title!)