You say that as if it were a fact. There's been a mountain of evidence suggesting improper influence on people whose results support anthropic climate change (e.g. Hansen at NASA), and a nearly 100% correlation between denialists and corporate sponsorship by polluters. Want to share your evidence for the same level of influence on the other side of the debate?

Tell you what: why don't you start by backing up that 100 percent number?

I have consistently linked to published scientists that work at universities and other non-corporate places. This is just one of them.

The article speaks for itself on the position scientists find themselves in when they come out even marginally on the "wrong" side of the Great Consensus.

That the term "heresy" can be used in connection with a scientific subject also speaks for itself.