Oh BS.
Anytime an article from WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc is posted that has a liberal point of view it is immediately slammed as biased, inaccurate, planted, or anything else that will diminish it's impact; usually with good reason.
Conversely, many of the articles posted are from the opposite side of the spectrum, and very rarely receive any questions about their slanted view; again, usually with good reason.
But this article does not need to be read to understand it's slant.
A site with the address "clean-coal.info"....with a GW topic.
If the same article came from a research group, NASA, UN, a university, hell, from a myriad of sources, it might be newsworthy.
If the authors were identified, they would be chastized as being ignorant, unfeeling, and (no matter who paid their salary) in the employ of "big oil".
Propaganda works...when it is repeated enough.
We must not allow ourselves to only "consider the source", but to "follow the money", and "research the evidence". The truth is out there. (thanks Mulder)
Nothing that comes from NASA, or the UN could possibly be considered anything more than propaganda.
NASA allowed the deliberate misrepresentation of data to turn the obvious cooling of the 90s to appear to be warming, and the UN hijacked the names of legitimate scientists, against their wishes, and contrary to the results of their research, for climate propaganda directed at a tax to empower the UN’s global tyranny.
But you apparently find that to be ‘credible.’