A single phrase does not justify dismissing an entire article, unless one is looking for excuses for doing so.
As a general rule, people use such phrases to cover for a weak, poorly argued case. It's a tell.
It's like what a lawyer told me once:
1. If the law is on your side, argue the law.
2. If justice is on your side, argue for justice.
3. If neither the law nor justice is on your side, call the other party names.
Yet I did read the whole article, and found it weak and poorly argued. His specific point about vomit was also weak and poorly argued, as I pointed out.
A word to the wise - if you want thoughtful people to read an article, don't use such phrases. I'm hardly the only person to point this out.
He did it repeatedly in the article.
> why his post was poorly argued
I pointed out that he neglected to account for why the oil companies existed - because people want gasoline. It isn't the oil companies emitting CO2, it's the gas consumers.
Thoughtful people can forgive some logical transgressions, especially when a growing subset of society see contributing to the supply of carbon as immoral. I personally do not, being an Albertan... however, it is a very common position in British Columbia, where Tim lives.