A story in the Washington Post is not a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific journal. It's a reporter's interpretation of what someone might have said--you couldn't even link to the original story, you posted a graphic of what looks like a photocopy--no one is going to take it seriously.
It's the same tooth-pulling that we go through with you guys on evolution as well. There are reasons you're becoming known as the anti-science party--you don't have any problem with the way silicon chips work, but you cherry-pick other branches of science that suggest your party line is fallible, and you're willing to paste terabytes of crap you lifted from Alex Jones, Charles Krauthammer or some other anti-science nutjob with a B.A. in journalism.
This is an argument science can't win because we're arguing with zealots, not truth-seekers. The science that makes your LCD screen work is done the same way that atmospheric science or evolutionary biology is, but the oil-lobby isn't competing with Samsung, they're trying to preserve the status-quo in a world that's getting more nervous about fossil-fuels and climate. Of COURSE you're going to laugh at renewable energy because that lobby is the one that manufactured your blinders; it's the one that feeds you your talking points. The scientific consensus is approaching total completeness, and you're not going to change that, no matter how many AnswersInGenesis and Fox News links you paste here.