Protagoras - I noticed Lawson failed to more than glimse (then look away) into the funding of anti-science beyond some of exxon's. Misleading and deceptive. The biggest funders - Koch industries - didn't rate a mention, meanwhile actual funding of scientific inquiry on this is apparently 'activism'.

The problem is real - The fossil fuel industry would sponsor real climate science if it actually thought it could win the science argument - but they choose to fund anti-science PR because they know they can't.

Meanwhile if there are wasteful and ineffective programs funded in the name of climate change it's almost certainly a result of the failures of mainstream politics to treat the issue as truly serious; things that sound good to quieten growing concerns about climate without having to actually do anything. That and the willingness of mainstream politics to do deals behind closed doors with the intent of stitching up support from lobby groups rather than the intent of stitching together good policy. Corn ethanol in the USA looks to be a bad example of vested interests using the issue for their own advantage, with actual effectiveness considered less important than the votes of US corn farmers. With serious bipartisan efforts to tackle climate change we'll get more effective and open policy.

Ken Fabos – I believe the network of institutions attempting to undermine climate science is vast. Apart from the witch hunts, lies, slander and money laundering, the right wing extremists are paralysing Governments with massive donations (bribes?)

Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies in the US have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

The top 2009/10 donor contributors were Koch, Exxon, Chevron, Valero and Marathon Oil. Unsurprisingly, the largest ever combined total of donations from oil and gas corporations occurred in 2009, with 2008, a close second. What chance clean energy?

In the US, the coal industry has supported Republicans in each of the past 10 election cycles. Coal companies gave Democrats only 27 percent of their donations in the 2008 cycle which was actually a leap from previous cycles. Between 2000 and 2006, the Democrats secured a paltry 12 percent of these companies’ contributions.

I’ve read of the revolving door in the US 'that shuffles former government employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers. While officials in the executive branch, Congress and senior congressional staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does privilege, power, access and, of course, money.' Sound familiar?

One could also rightly or wrongly presume that the mining industry in Australia is endeavouring to ‘buy’ academia with their Chairs in every major university in the nation. Rio Tinto has committed $21 million to R&D at the University of Sydney to support their global mining and processing activities. Bludging off the environment is a profitable business.

While there is compelling evidence to show that our hard-working academics cannot be bought (though there are one or two suspects!), one must ask if the mining industry’s infiltration into academia has the potential to gag researchers, compromise transparency and any effective endeavours towards mitigating hazardous fossil fuel emissions including CO2?

Protagoras, there does seem to be a significant divide between academic programs aimed at understanding climate, climate change and it's impacts and those aimed at maximising industry growth and efficiency. Climate science is currently more in the pure science end of the spectrum rather than patent hunting applied sciences, where corporate partnerships seem to have a legitimate place. Proponents of action on climate change still support applied R&D - technological solutions are fundamental to successful transition to low-emissions - but not R&D intended to maximise the ongoing use of fossil fuels.
Mark Lawson appears to consider any spending on climate change, regardless of it's importance, appropriateness or effectiveness, as waste ie he thinks it should cease.
Proposing we stop studying climate and climate change and stop developing any kinds of mitigation and adaptation strategies - and seeing that as the proper and responsible policy response - is deeply dismaying but hardly surprising from staunch opponents of action. Given that multiple lines of ongoing research keep vindicating and strengthening understanding of human impacts on climate change what else is left but to try and stop more and better science on it! In order to get people to believe climate change is overblown or non-existent trust in climate science and scientists has to be undermined. It will be futile; the real world impacts of past and present emissions are going to be increasing evident as global warming gathers momentum and the Mark Lawsons of the world will be recognised as the misguided, reality denying obstacles to our future that they are.