Given the recent changes to the lead, let me make an adjusted proposal here:

 The book received glowing reviews from the conservative press who called it "all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want," but much criticism from scientists. Critics have argued that it is unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent.

Proposed changes are in italics.  I can't make it any shorter but at least this avoids the debate over my calling them "supporters".  Are there any objections to this version?