True of course, but I meant "does the fact that he is a physicist and not a climatologist affect the implication that he is being funded to spread disinformation?". The original article does not proclaim any particular theory on Global Warming. Rather, it criticizes the process by which science is being politicized. This strikes me as a matter for which any scientist should be allowed to speak.

I take offense at the notion that anyone who would want to question the process can be presumed to be acting out of pecuniary interest rather than a desire to find truth. So I ask again: Daniel, are you claiming that Hal Lewis and at least some of the 200 people who signed his petition are being paid to do so?