Some of the oil companies that joined the partnership are taking part in an oil industry campaign against the climate change bill in Congress. The campaign features public rallies against the bill in places such as Houston and Greensboro, N.C., coordinated by the industry's main lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute.

The rallies are designed to look like grassroots affairs. But an e-mail from the institute to oil company executives outlining the campaign and asking them to participate was leaked to Greenpeace, which released it to the public.

ConocoPhillips, a member of the climate change partnership, posted a note on its Web site encouraging people to go. BP, another partnership member, told employees about the rallies but did not encourage them to attend, according to a company spokesman.

As a result, observers wonder whether the partnership could lose some of its effectiveness, just as the debate over global warming legislation moves to a critical stage.

"It's

Sorry I might of upset you the other day, I was very low, but thank you for your coments on the bullfighting

No problem, I just ignore bad clips these days, there are so many people on here, not all can agree with us. As for anything related to making animals suffer...... I hate it as I consider animals as superior to humans, they only kill to survive or defend themselves not like humans who kill for pleasure, greed and other weird things. We are a plague on this planet that should be eradicated.

well some of us humans care

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

- Reid A. Bryson holder of the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education.

Exactly WHAT % of scientists agree with the above by Info? I have read so many stating that we should reduce contamination and anyway what is wrong with protecting the planet? If it is a natural cycle, then we will have a possibility of getting other substances out into the air to slow the cycle down and allow our descendants to survive. Or must we always be selfish and destructive!!!

What does concensus have to do with science? Who ever heard of doing science by concensus? Science is supposed to be about domonstratable, reproducable results. Give me the science, not the concensus.

Consensus is a tool of religion and politics. The fact that the IPCC has to rely on consensus tells me the IPCC is really more about religion or politics than science. I don't care what a scientist believes, I want to know what he can prove, with rigorous scientific demonstration.

The general consensus in the scientific community used to be that the world is flat, the general consensus amongst scientists used to be that the earth was the centre of the universe.

Science deals in facts not quasi-religious dogmatic-pseudo-science.

Although if you do want play by concensus the IPCC has around 2000 members, whereas Al Gore is currently being sued by over 30000 well respected scientists, including about 3-4000 PHD's, for fraud.

I would be interested to know which party these scientists vote for who are suing Al Gore? Of course this has NOOOO financial nor political implications I am sure!!! )