This is clearly not being billed as a question about non-disclosure of funding, so you can understand why people might think it's not the smoking gun evidence o

This is clearly not being billed as a question about non-disclosure of funding, so you can understand why people might think it's not the smoking gun evidence of misconduct it is purported to be. To me it feels like the headline and the story are that these guys have a conflict of interest because of the funding (i.e. "we paid these scientists to say climate change isn't a problem"), but in fact everything in this article is consistent with it going the other way around - they have a conflict of interest because they have strong beliefs on a scientific topic, and may be willing to do dodgy stuff in favor of that. I never said that nothing wrong happened (I honestly don't know), just that it feels like a bait-and-switch because I get the strong implication here that the point of this story is that these guys are taking bribes to induce them to say what they are saying, which is very different from "they are hiding the source of the funding which enables them to say what they are saying".