That article is a real mess, full of bits that are "not even wrong". How can you simultaneously claim that some alternate way of looking at the data (a) won't r

That article is a real mess, full of bits that are "not even wrong". How can you simultaneously claim that some alternate way of looking at the data (a) won't reach any different conclusions, AND (b) must have had its science corrupted (to reach different intended conclusions) due to a dubious funding source? Aren't those mutually exclusive? And then there's simultaneously (a) publicizing early claims (outside the scientific literature) that "mainstream" climate researchers are sure the results will be X, while (b) saying that publicizing early claims outside the scientific literature is unethical? Not to mention the ridiculous confusion over Climategate...