Poisoning the well is a well-known rhetorical fallacy. It is really worth the effort to study, learn and be on the lookout for fallacies in public discourse, although doing so will lead to some depressing insights.

False equivalences are also fallacious, and I urge you to desist from employing them.

I think you misread the parent and the grandparent.

Also, I can't understand what you're tying "poisoning the well" or "false equivalence" to.

He suggests strongly that they are delusional (as are basically everyone who disagrees with him). That's a big claim to make under the banner of 'free speech' while not having to defend it.

Can you link to where he says climate scientists are delusional?

I've only recently looked at his blog, but what I've seen him say on the topic has been this-

1. He doesn't have the training to evaluate climate science, so he gives climate scientists the benefit of the doubt in that climate change is happening and is driven by humans.

2. However, his personal experience with complex models is that they're never very good at predicting the future, and so he doesn't trust that complex climate models are either.

3. Climate scientists suck at using persuasive techniques to win people over to their beliefs. This seems to be his main thing as he is attempting to brand himself as a guru of persuasion.

"On the question of trusting experts, my frame of reference is the field of influence and persuasion. From my point of view – and given the examples of mass delusion that I have personally witnessed (including Trump’s election), I see experts as far less credible than most people assume." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

That same article starts with

"Before I start, let me say as clearly as possible that I agree with the scientific consensus on climate change. If science says something is true – according to most scientists, and consistent with the scientific method – I accept their verdict."

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that opening statement is a rhetorical device.

Oh, it absolutely is. Scott Adams does this kind of thing all the time.

Paraphrased, but this is something else he posted: "Let me say that I am a Hillary supporter..." ok... "because if I supported Trump, then Hillary supports would kill me." wtf?

This is a category error. Freedom of speech is not itself sabotage, but it is obvious that one can use speech to commit sabotage.

Who said anything about freedom of speech?