Frankly, I find the entire article fully misleading.
I think that's a bit strong. Certainly it's glib and pat, and anyone concluding much of anything based on it would be a credulous fool. But unless these three papers do not, in fact, exist, or are completely misrepresented, the piece can't be "fully misleading".
I don't know whether the papers are misrepresented because I haven't bothered to read them, for the same reason that I take no position on AGW: it's not my area of research, and my opinion on it is unlikely to have any measurable consequence. It's certainly not going to be a determining factor in how I exercise my political or economic power - it'd be far down those lists.
One ponders some financial inducement...
This, however, is tired, tiresome, childish, and a violation of the Reg's (never-enforced) posting guidelines. Lewis can hold an opinion contrary to yours without being paid to do so. The shilling argument is a resort of those who have nothing better to offer.