[notahacker]

Frankly, in some cases that's likely to backfire. Point out that a global warming sceptic accepts huge amounts of money from an oil-company linked foundation and they'll take great pleasure in pointing out which green advocacy groups fund an awful lot of research on the other side of the debate. If the net effect is less trust in any climate science, they win.

[BatFastard]

And as everyone knows the green advocacy groups are making a TON of money from reselling non polluted air, and they are making a killing buying inland beaches!

[ZeroGravitas]

There doesn't seem to be any equivalance there. I'm sure that they'd try to pretend there is, and indeed they already do make vague claims about a "climate change lobby" making millions, and it all being a front for "lefties", but that doesn't really alter the fact that it isn't there.

[notahacker]

Equivalence doesn't need to exist for FUD to work. (and to be fair, research whose funding appears to be predicated on the study being designed to support the funding foundation's official position on the issue is open to question regardless of whether the foundation has ulterior motives or not)