> The report did not examine the impact of outside money on the messages of groups that encourage activism on climate change. Farrell suggested that there were qualitative differences...

It would have been (more) scientific to compare the two factions. There's plenty of money to be made on both sides of the issue--ask any lawyer.

Perhaps, but you omit the quote immediately following -- which is worthy of debate / consideration:

  “Funders looking to influence organizations 
   who promote a consensus view are very different 
   from funders looking to influence organizations 
   who have the goal of creating polarization and 
   controversy and delaying policy progress on a 
   scientific issue that has nearly uniform consensus,”

We agree it's worthy of debate, not merely a hand-waving assertion.

In the 18th century, the French Academy of Science published their consensus that there were no rocks that fell from the sky because there are manifestly no rocks in the sky. So European museums threw out their collections of meteorites.