Fair points John, thanks for the explanation. Seems I gave Young too much credit, though I am fully aware of the motivation behind the 'sceptics' of 'creating doubt and inaction from self-interested parties', as you put it. Ken mentions the tobacco lobby, and I recently read 'Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes & Conway which traces the fossil fuel funded anti-environmentalism to big tobacco's response to attempts to limit sales of cigarettes, using the same tactics and often masterminded by the same people. As one tobacco exec put it:

'Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.' - https://thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2017/doubt-is-our-product

Otherwise, it could well be that the Daily Sceptic has received fossil fuel money, directly or indirectly, and that is indeed routinely observed in organisations that spread doubt and denial about climate science. However Packham's claim was that 'professionals with close affiliations to the fossil fuel industry' founded the Daily Sceptic, for which I've not been able to find any evidence. I'm not against publicly shaming, exposing or even insulting people who do that kind of thing, but it should be based on fact not innuendo, otherwise it's counterproductive.

cheers,
I