So like most of the random articles I read these days, this one was posted by someone on Facebook. I'm kinda not sure what to think of it, though I suppose it's not terribly surprising. Here, have a look:
Though I will say that the author of that article didn't impress me with her so-called takedown of Barton:
"Barton says that the Great Flood is an example of Climate Change, when in fact the Bible states that the earth was flooded to rid the earth of sin. ... So in other words the Great Flood was not a change in climate at all but God’s wrath brought upon all of the sinners and his intention was to cleanse the earth and start anew."
It could totally be both, though; the author is confusing God's intent with His potential mechanism of action. The torrential rains that caused the Flood (in one account) could have been a byproduct of God-made climate change -- which God engineered because He was super pissed at humanity and wanted to wipe the slate clean. There's no necessary contradiction there.
(I suppose one could make the argument that the change in climate that caused the Flood was more sudden -- and thus doesn't count as climate change proper -- but the rain that lasted for forty days and forty nights could have been the exclamation point at the end of a climate-changey sentence God started writing decades earlier.)