Even if you don't like Scott Adams (And I don't particularly like the guy myself), I don't think that should invalidate the specific statement that the article quotes, which should be able to stand on its own regardless of the background of the person saying it.
See also: ad hominem, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
He’s also expressed some pretty odd ideas. From the same link:
> Regular readers know that I used my background in hypnosis to accurately predict nine-out-nine political events in 2015, while most political professionals got zero right. That makes me the best political pundit of the year.
The podcast QAnon Anonymous (which reports on conspiracy theories; it’s not pro-conspiracy thinking) did an episode about him.[1] It’s been a long time since I listened to it, so I won’t try to sum it up because I’d do so poorly. He came off as an unpleasant person who doesn’t seem admirable to me. I wouldn’t link to him in a post about character assassination.
[0] https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/12/31/hypnotizing-you-to...
[1] https://m.soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-43-scott-ada...