If you don't think that both extreme sides of the global warming argument are political, you're hiding your head in the sand. You can't trust what Haliburton says about the environment, but you can't trust Greenpeace either.
I'd have to say, I don't consider "trust" as part of this issue. For me it's not about the data. It's more about connecting to where people are coming from regarding this issue. Simply put, those whom have an ear for caring, protecting and connecting to the Earth/Nature as opposed to those whom think that humanity can piss on whatever it pleases without ever having to address how that reflects its relationship to its source or resources... Well, that's where I draw the line. For me it's about listening to people's processes, or where they are coming from, and ultimately where they're AT will determine what is important.
Of course, politically, we've created a whirling shitstorm of agendas around the validity or invalidity of the issue. This seems unavoidable as insecurity is a particular strength of the human species, easily manipulated via popular sentiment. Whatever the "truth" is related to these issues seems inconsequential, as our perspectives appear to revolve more around the way we come to a state of personal conviction. For a good deal of us, it's all about what we are told, or hear, read, ingest, or in the word of our present operating paradigm, the information we accumulate and collect and obsess over. Sadly, that shit comes and goes with the prevailing scientific and academic tides. For others, its about coming to feel connected at an interior level, or acknowledging one's experience of connection to self and nature. Of course that's exactly what's got people going ape over this issue. It's not about the issue, it's about the people on both sides of the divide. Each side flipping hates the other. The dividing line on this issue has inspired a deep schism and sense of distrust over the way we come to define our convictions. I.e. one is informed from an exterior source and the other an interior. Exterior is belief oriented, and interior is experience oriented. For instance, if you can't provide the data but are still convicted that paying attention to environmental concerns is integral to your process, one is strung up and ridiculed as a tree-hugging, hippie liberal freakshow, and vice versa: if you don't buy the argument, you must be a callous, gun-toting, meat-eating murder. Sad.
To me this whole business is just an integration process happening at a societal level -and it's going to have its cost. Who knows how long it will take to flesh this out, as there is a much bigger issue trying to find a resolution. In my opinion, it's a fantastic distraction, and one that will prevent many from dealing with their own anxiety and discomfort about having to address their present condition.
And they said it wouldn't last. 
I do think the article is interesting and it shows the room in the sciences for honest inquiry. Of course it also shows the political influences. But, that's the world we live in.
