I didn't pay much attention to the original OpEd article, because I knew the writer was biased. Of course, the article you quote and the scientists quoted therein have no axes to grind at all (quite a lot of "breathless rhetoric" there, too).

I'm getting a little tired of "funded by Exxon" as a major issue. "Funded by organizations that would shut you off cold if you were anything other than pro-AGW" matters a bit in this context, too.

This became a political issue over a scientific one a long time ago. I don't even discuss it much any more. The belief that the Earth is being destroyed by human-caused combustion processes is now considered immune to any further data of any kind, along with the inevitable conclusion that the only solution is massive centralized control of all industries involving combustion and the wealth produced by them. At this point, I'm surprised they simply aren't burning skeptics at the stake. Maybe with solar reflectors?

As an example, here's how research into Svensmark's theories is being handled. If you get results that don't match the zeitgeist, you'd better shut up about it. Most scientists who want to keep working have gotten with the program.