It is pointless mudslinging. Every think tank compensates scientists to write policy papers. Somehow the fact that this one was right-wing made it possible to p

It is pointless mudslinging. Every think tank compensates scientists to write policy papers. Somehow the fact that this one was right-wing made it possible to portray the practice as nefarious, whereas when, say, the Center for American Progress compensates left-wing researchers for writing anti-minimum-wage studies that isn't considered newsworthy. Writing papers that usefully critique the IPCC reports is important and there's nothing wrong with compensating such work. The thing AEI did "wrong" was to cast a wider net in an attempt to find people better capable of doing that. AEI was doing something praiseworthy - trying to find critiques from outside normal places a conservative think tank might look, which might highlight overlooked points of view. If that's wrong, what's the alternative? Only use papers from people you have on salary? Only use papers from people who are so solidly in your own ideological camp they won't run to the Guardian? That's nuts! Shouldn't we WANT any scientists who have reservations about the IPCC conclusions to have an incentive to write papers exploring the question?