: perhaps you should join the EPA, seems they need some credibility and scientific rigour
SDF: Now that you've gainsaid the EPA's researchers with some oil-industry-generated hearsay (and horribly inspecific hearsay at that -- the article said absolutely nothing about what the EPA's research said or what made it objectionable), you can now go about finding an equally spurious piece of hearsay against each of the links on this page, since 95% of them offer solid evidence for the global warming phenomenon. What fun! Bicker by the numbers!
For the sake of improving the quality of debate on this thread, I'd like to offer this mini-manual for the proper presentation of the oil industry's case:
"When we bicker about global warming, offering our nitpicking and false aspersions about global warming science, we need to make sure we conflate the questions at hand, which are three and deserve to be dealt with separately:
1) Is the earth warming?
2) Does global warming present dangers to humanity?
3) Does ecological crisis have any connection to the structure of society?
4) What can ordinary people do about it?
See, if we deal with these questions separately, people will start to feel that global warming science presents a coherent position. So we must always remind the public that the global warming scientists have found no absolute proof, and we must always conflate these four abovestated questions, switching from one to the other to confuse our audiences. To do otherwise would disturb the assurance of profits for the oil industries who pay our salaries."
There it is, free advice! Take it and run!