That is pretty much the definition of an ad-hominem attack.
Your criticisms of his approach are valid, but also apply to a good number of climatologists whose income is more dependent upon pro-AGW funding this his is dependent upon oil company funding. Glass houses, stones, etc.
FWIW, my position is that correlation between human activity and climate change has (finally) been solidly established, but:
- our models lack any real predictive ability w.r.t. future climate, except to say "interesting stuff will happen."
- catastrophic climate change happens regardless of human input
Given the above two points I'm unconvinced that there's any AGW-based argument for legislation. Argument based on atmospheric pollution harming human life? Sure.
Instead, we should be focusing on growing our technological and academic capacity towards climate engineering. Regardless of what AGW brings, at some point in our history, we will need to tweak the climate to survive.
I want people to not waste their time bothering to check that guy's claims.
Scientists gather data and form an opinion.
This guy has an opinion before he sees any data; he's paid at least 40% of his funding for having that opinion; and then manipulates data to fit that opinion. He misrepresents other people's work and other people's opinions.
If he had lied once or twice then perhaps there's some useful information to be had by carefully checking what he's saying. But the pattern is so strong that people can safely ignore him. Just as we ignore the time-cube guy, or people who use phrases like quantum touch healing.