The earlier post, Common Prediction asserted:

The error is in assuming that the work of these scientists is for sale, that they would deliver the conclusions desired for a price. If this is this case then all scientists, no matter what their positions, are paid flacks who conveniently deliver the desired results depending on the funding source. The proponents of climate change are even more guilty, since they get more money, than the opponents. This is nonsense.

That was in response to a breathless expose by political advocate Katherine Ellison claiming that the funding of climate change skeptics came from big oil and coal concerns and that that was "shocking". Now the NYT and the politicized blogosphere is atwitter about the funding of Patrick J. Michaels.

Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in Sedalia, Colo., has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to contribute to Dr. Michaels next year. . .

Mr. Lewandowski and Dr. Michaels, who holds a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin, have openly acknowledged the donations and say they see no problem. But some environmental advocates say the effort clearly poses a conflict of interest.

“This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of the Washington advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

Prometheus puts this in context.

Is only some money unclean? Those who are criticized for accepting industry money often observe that Jim Hansen was awarded an unrestricted cash prize of $250,000 from the Heinz Family Philanthropies. Stanford University’s Global Climate & Energy Project has accepted $100 million in support from ExxonMobil and other industry sponsors. Does this mean that we should discount Hansen’s work and that coming from Stanford? Or is it only certain combinations of people and funders that we should be concerned about? . . .

Do opinions chase dollars, or do dollars chase opinions? I am convinced that it is the latter, a consequence of what Dan Sarewitz has called the "excess of objectivity" which allows political interests to simply survey the landscape and align with convenient experts. With nod to their own apparent moral superiority, RealClimate suggests that the causality goes the other way, writing, "any quote from Michaels should probably be followed with 'So spake the industry's P.R.O, A man who really ought to know, For he is paid for saying so'."

If money is the measure then Hansen is lots dirtier than Michaels. If any of the "shocked" politicians were even vaguely honest they would have to be more upset about Hansen than Michaels.