Fair point, but it seems as though the energy lobby has made it for that genetic fallacy not to occur anymore. maybe the two scholars at hand countered climate change scientists through facts and reasons (for Clemente, the second scientist, maybe he argued that there were many other factors that caused the death of those 3.7 million people, and that they were not a direct result of coal related pollution), but the fact of the matter is that anything they say can contain malicious intent, and that is what we have to be weary of, especially when they get transferred money through the "dark-money ATM" of the energy lobby.The article seems to be making a genetic fallacy. Because the money came from oil or coal, any result must be inherently distrustworthy.
I totally agree, and while I'll argue the money source doesn't inherently void the work, I should have said just as clearly that the money can be a cause for concern and should be a reason to investigate the validity of scientific claims.