Even worse, he can't finish his introductory paragraph without introducing a strawman:
Basic scientific principles demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of “greenhouse gases”.
Nobody has ever said that the overall, or entire greenhouse effect is a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases...
It's especially humorous when we consider the very next sentence:
Politics can be claimed to be the art of appearing credible, at least in a democracy.
Not exactly credible, for a climatologist to be whacking a strawman that no scientist has ever proposed.
And he completely get's it wrong on the IPCC. The IPCC is not science...it's a review of the state of science...it's unfathomable to me that any scientist could make a mistake like this. Unless of course it isn't a mistake, in which case he is simply making statements, appearing to sound credible.
And he's also guilty of the same thing he accuses the IPCC of, in that he doesn't use the scientific method at all to make his claims. He states, without results of such tests which would allow one to claim as he does, that adding greenhouse gases will not result in any temperature change at all.
It's rubbish pseudoscience.