A wingnut's dilemma.

It seems that in his haste to denigrate Al Gore and his relentless efforts to help people understand the climate change crisis and its not-so-difficult solutions, religious right leader and supreme wingnut Tony Perkins of Family Research Council kinda sorta forgot he's supposed to take the bible literally:

During the session, Gore's "Chicken Little" scenarios were met with skepticism, particularly from Senate Republicans like Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who said he, like many scientists, believed the dire global warming projections were a "hoax." On the House side, the former vice president was called a prophet by some Democratic members but his revelations were challenged by others. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, cited 600,000-year-old scientific evidence that Gore's carbon dioxide claims are false.

Ah, Tony? Doesn't the bible say the earth is only around 10,000 years old? Aren't all scientific discoveries that claim to prove otherwise simply false
"evidence" planted by Satan to mislead us (or false evidence planted by God
to test our faith, depending on which version of the bible you believe or
which religious charlatan you follow)?

I'm eagerly waiting to see which contradictory extremist fallacy prevails
here. Will Perkins condemn Rep. Barton for citing evidence that, by the
bible's definition, can't possibly be true? What's more powerful - the right
wing extremists' love of the bible, or their fear and loathing of Al Gore
and everything he represents?

Personally, I'm betting on the fear and loathing. Hate always seems to win out with these people.

h/t slacktivist