The anti-tobacco industry pays its scientists, too.
Backup documentation is available on both counts.
The funding story cuts both ways. You can't cover one side without covering the other. That is a lot more than the global warming skeptics receive from industry. We are better off focusing on the merits of scientific arguments, not who pays to broadcast them, lest we fall into the trap of shooting the messenger because we do not like the message. Indeed, many editors refuse to request or print declarations of sponsorship, concluding that it would be a vote of no-confidence for editors, peer reviewers, and readers and in itself a bias in the presentation of facts.