Hi Kelly, I don't think the article had an unbiased view on the issue of funding - to compare funding that people receive from oil and gas companies with funding that researchers receive after a peer reviewed process of research proposals is like comparing apples with oranges. Of course many researchers these days like to focus on climate change, because it is horribly hard these days to receive any funding, and many people's salary completely rely on external funding. We need to trust that those projects that do get funded will indeed help to better understand issues that are of critical importance for solving the climate crisis. Of course not all funded projects always deserve the amount of funding they receive, that's true for all areas of research, but all in all, I trust scientists do the best they can for their own career sake, and reviewers do the best they can to weed out those proposals that do not deserve funding.
Even if for some scientists the motivation for climate change related research were indeed just the money and the fame, at least they do still help solve the crisis, or at least don't stand in its way; whereas that cannot be said for those people funded by oil companies. Luckily, the link is off the California webpage. Maiken
