It certainly is.
There is an article written by a person who is attempting to claim that global warming is both real and caused by human beings. Unfortunately, his only line of argument is that the majority of scientists that deny it are funded by Exxon Mobile. He, like many global warming proponents, fails to actually argue for his position. That argument is bad and anyone who uses it ought to relearn all of their fallacies again.
First, the origin of an argument is irrelevant. It does not matter whether Exxon Mobile supports scientific efforts against global warming. It would not matter if the local church supported it, or the flat earth society supported it. What would matter would be the arguments made by the scientists that are being supported. To claim otherwise is to simply misunderstand what an argument is and how to argue correctly. Arguments are supported by reasons, one either attacks the reasons by claiming there is not enough evidence or offers some sort of counter-evidence. These are the only ways to argue right. Ben does not do this, therefore Ben is arguing wrong.
Second, arguing that peer-review is not foolproof will not insulate your claims from criticism. I agree that peer review is not foolproof. It is no better than chance on average. But that makes it equally possible that papers supporting global warming have improperly passed peer review. The only way to judge any paper is by the evidence and argument, not by claims (especially unsupported ones) that such papers have improperly passed peer review. After all, if peer review is not reliable then we should check all peer reviewed papers ourselves not just the ones we disagree with.
Third, profit motives are not nearly as simple as he is making them out to be. Oil companies are making a reasonable amount of profit, but not an excessive amount. Currently, Exxon Mobil’ s profit margin is at 8%. Local gas stations have profit margins around 5%. Comparatively, computer sales make 6% profit margins (at the store) and about 23% median at the manufacturer. So the facts show different things than Ben’ s baseless accusations. Also, Ben is not at all like the person who points out the health problems of cigarettes. Environmentalist action would severely harm the economy. They usually wish industries to reduce their carbon output. While this might sound like a harmless thing, it has the potential to completely destroy entire industries. Companies especially oil companies support research into the facts against global warming as a check against the beliefs of global warming. Since there are economic factors on both sides, it is best to consider the facts and leave the economics to economists.
All of these points mean that if this sort of article is what the faithful global warming believers use to for each other, then their case is extremely weak. There is no mention of evidence or argument, only a discussion of motives. Perhaps such a discussion might have a place if the evidence and argument for global warming were clear. Since it is nowhere close to clear, such rhetoric seems to be covering up the lack of evidence.