Today, Greenpeace attacked ExxonMobil for exercising its free speech rights. In particular, it criticized Exxon-Mobil for spending $2 million funding about 40 groups it calls "global warming skeptics." For perspective (missing from this article), pro-anthropomorphic global warming research receives over $2 billion in the US alone (and that is just government money, it does not include private money), making Exxon's funding less than 0.1% of that provided to groups with opposing viewpoints.
How settled can the science be if the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) believers feel horribly threatened by a group they outspend more than 1000:1? This is like Hillary Clinton complaining that Mike Gravel is being allowed to spend too much money. The AGW folks have consistently lost debates where they went head to head against credible skeptics. If you don't want to argue the issues, you resort to ad hominem attacks.
By the way, shame on Exxon-Mobil for getting all defensive about their spending. They should have said "sure we are skeptics, and we think there are a lot of good reasons to be skeptics. In fact, we'd love to have a televised debate with Greenpeace on AGW."
Update: In a related announcement, scientists declared the science of Phlogiston settled.