This is a rather ad hominem attack which does not really refute his point or lead to a good discussion.
If we're going to critique someone it does not do them justice to criticize their scientific pedigree just because some of their ideas are fringe (as you rightly pointed out they have sufficient scientific rigor and have published real work that shows they understand the subject matter at an expert level).
It would be much more fruitful to critique the ideas in question (as was done in response to his papers) which would be the correct way to go about it.
If we're going to critique someone it does not do them justice to criticize their scientific pedigree just because some of their ideas are fringe (as you rightly pointed out they have sufficient scientific rigor and have published real work that shows they understand the subject matter at an expert level).
It would be much more fruitful to critique the ideas in question (as was done in response to his papers) which would be the correct way to go about it.