scientist says "no!" to climate change, page-27

The old guy is in the process of losing his marbles. I see another Monckton in the making, except Lewis is 87 and probably not much longer for this world.

Why does he use "tendentious" instead of "biased"? So he can sound smart. Monckton does the same thing with all his fancy "ad hominem" and other Latin phrases, in order to sound smart and divert attention away from the fact that what he is saying is actually very dumb. His crack-pot theories have been consistently demolished over and over by people who know what they are talking about.

Why is what Lewis is saying also dumb? Because he is basing his theory of motivation for the scientific community on the pursuit of money. For the most part climate scientists need funding in order to keep their jobs, I concede that. But the forces that are trying to influence and divert this debate away from the science are those that earn multi-trillions of dollars from the oil and coal and gas that they dig out of the ground and that we are all utterly and hopelessly addicted to. That is where the big money is, not in the pursuit of climate science. The big money is where the power to create uncertainty, invent scandals and spin propaganda is.

If you cannot see that obvious and simple fact then you are blind, just like Lewis.