Glanced at the abstract. It's looks like yet another publicized item of marketing and deception from the Heartland Institute's paid representatives. Is there some reason I should pay more attention to it? Life is short, the authors have a track record of worthless reasoning and irrelevancy, is there some new factor to consider? You are being played by your sources. You are accepting, for instance, Curry's attempt to frame an issue of "conflicts of interest" on "both sides" of some kind of controversy or legitimate dispute over anthro global warming. That entire approach is conscious and intentional political spin, paid for by Exxon and Chevron and the Koch brothers and so forth. If you think for ten seconds there are "conflicts of interest on both sides" or anything of the kind, you're a sucker. Willie Soon does not have a "conflict of interest" - he's a paid representative of Exxon and Chevron and the Koch brothers, with their interests as his. Likewise Monckton. Likewise McKitrick (sp? the stat guy, Ross). And all the rest. Probably Curry, judging by her consistently deceptive presentation of issues and deep involvement in the political dogfight surrounding the coal industry in Australia. Follow them, if you must, as you would a marketing campaign for a bad product or a PR firm's efforts for a corrupt politician.