AEI's Crime?

Sorry but I don't get it. There is nothing inherently wrong with a think-tank using its corporate dollars to finance research projects whose results might benefit such companies. The key is transparency and accountability. I don't see any evidence that AEI sent out letters secretly seeking contrary studies to the IPCC report on climate change. So what's the scandal? Listen to this hysteric:

"It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

He sounds like a member of the curia, not a scientist. There's something creepy about the notion that a scientific report must not be subject to scientific criticism, regardless of how it's funded. If the studies are flawed, attack the studies. It is as if climate change has become a doctrine to be defended rather than a hypothesis to be debated. I should add I find much of the evidence for man-made, carbon-based global warming to be extremely convincing. Maybe that's why I'm completely unfazed by the idea of studies being commissioned to question it. Let the studies be debated on their scientific merits. And if the skeptical papers don't persuade, why wouldn't the climate-change alarmists be pleased?