Confusing scientist and skeptic

Back in October, the NY Times decided to dub as contrarian a particular study at UC Berkeley that duplicated global warming experiments suggesting a human cause. Their argument that this panel is contrarian simply doesn't seem to be valid.

First question: what does the project lead (Richard Muller) think about the whole idea of human-caused global warming? Back in 2004 he said:

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)

He seems to buy human activity as a cause of global warming, but just seems to think that some of the research that's been done has been a bit shoddy. Isn't a scientist one who tests and retests hypotheses rather than accepting them just because they agree with your conclusions?

The second question: who's paying for the research? They're getting some funding from a Koch Foundation, known for campaigning against human-caused climate change. Seems pretty clear... obviously they must be deeply biased. But wait... who else is on that list of donors? Bill Gates, whose views on climate change don't exactly jive with those of the Koch Foundation. Seems to cancel out the Koch influence.

To go back and quote a few more of Muller's words:

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

I'd make a fairly similar argument about a Republican "war on science". What do you know... Democrats do much the same.