If I'm reading this New Yorker article correctly, the same shadowy forces that once undermined a scientific consensus for nuclear winter then turned their attention to undermining a scientific consensus for global warming. They were equally nefarious both times, either because they're very bad people or because their money comes from very bad people, or both. The conclusion seems to acknowledge grudgingly that science is corrupted when it's in service of the nation-state's political objectives, but the lesson we're to draw is that we're not entitled to be skeptical of global warming unless we're also skeptical of claims that nuclear war would be just peachy keen for the environment. Well, okay then.
Honestly, I remember when The New Yorker had smarter authors and lots better editors.