Environment & Energy

Among other remnants, the good news is that Richard Lindzen is 85 and retired more than a decade ago, and Fred Singer is dead.

As for the authors of this particular product:

Spencer believes in the pseudoscience of intelligent design which was criticized by Phil Plait, in Slate as advocating "warmed-over creationism".[34] Spencer's views on the matter were used as an example in an exploration by the Christian Science Monitor as a possible connection between climate change denial and creationism.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)

McKitrick gained his doctorate in economics in 1996[2] from the University of British Columbia, and in the same year was appointed assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. In 2001 he received an associate professorship and has been a full professor since December 2008. He has also been a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute since 2002. He is a member of the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

A devout Baptist, Christy believes that "the use of carbon-based energy" is "needed to lengthen and enhance the quality of human life", which is the "moral imperative." He has argued that efforts to limit greenhouse pollution are "trying to control how others live".[10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

Curry's position on climate change was much criticized by climate scientists,[17][15] and she became known as a contrarian scientist.[3][22][23] A 2013 Media Matters for America study found that Curry was among the "climate doubters" most frequently quoted by the press as spreading public doubts about climate science. Going against the vast majority view of climate scientists, she had suggested to newspapers that most of the recent global warming was not human-caused, and had hinted that IPCC scientists are motivated by "funding" even though they are not paid for their contributions.[24] She consistently presents her view that climate science has much larger uncertainties than those shown by mainstream studies, though she has not shown any previously unconsidered cause for such uncertainty.[25] A 2019 article in Human Ecology Review described her position as a form of climate denialism, criticizing her downplaying of potential future climate change effects and emphasis on the costs of addressing climate change.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

Pielke's the only one who even begins to approach scientific respectability.

Although he had stated that carbon dioxide is not the predominant forcing of global warming, Pielke said in 2007 that he was not a "sceptical scientist" about climate change:[2][3]

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!

Pielke has criticized the IPCC, claiming they are over-simplifying the science involved, not properly communicating uncertainties in models, and being too focused on CO2 while neglecting other climate forcing effects.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke