[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
When you specifically pick "climate-change naysayers" you're pretty much restricting yourself to hacks, since I think the evidence is incontrovertible and insurmountable (as I said). That's like picking "evolution naysayers".

My point is that corporate funded research per se is not inherently less trustworthy that publicly-funded research, and the scientific literature is filled with privately funded research that is peer reviewed and published in the same journals as publicly funded research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then on the point I was making we agree. The naysayers are indeed hacks. And, whether because of that or because they simply have no case, I don't think they've really published much of value. And when you compare those hacks with the scientific community it's pretty easy to see whose statements one can safely give more weight to. I was just trying to point the OP toward the more credible information.

I don't feel qualified to comment on your statement that "corporate funded research per se is not inherently less trustworthy that publicly-funded research." In theory it should be true. I'm not sure about the reality.