It's really, really hard to find people who have written accurately about solar on the internet. What he said about solar, RV installs, battery charging, etc, is all 100% accurate. He deals with the broken installs by the places that advertise that they know what they're doing.
If you're willing to toss all that out based on more recent writings, it's your choice, but I try to judge writings based on their accuracy, not what I think about the person. You're entitled to judge writings however you want, but if you're considering off grid solar and write the guy's writings off, your loss.
At any rate, it is an impairment of gathering and processing information correctly, not intelligence. It's a filter problem. I had a really hard time with this too, after seeing how people I previously respected dealt with this whole thing.
---
For what it's worth - I'm strongly in favor of people choosing to get vaccinated and masking up in public. I despise the people who made this a wedge issue for their own benefit.
I also think that being self-righteous about it is very tempting but also very bad and destructive to discourse.
It's a popular enough viewpoint today, certainly, but it leads to throwing out huge swaths of perfectly good work that could be useful. Obviously, I reject it. I don't know the guy, I don't know what's happened to him or not in the past decade since he was writing on the deep truths of RV solar. I do know that the more I learn about solar from hands on operation, the more his writings reflected what I'd found through experimentation/analysis/etc. You could apply plenty of his rantings to some of the off-grid battery destroying systems presented on YouTube as Grade A Amazing builds and improve a lot on those systems.
But, if you're only willing to consider the viewpoints of those you would consider show clear thinking, which largely translates to "agrees with what I already think," you're welcome to go through life that way. I tend to find that dreadfully boring and a good way to miss an awful lot of really solid knowledge. I'm happy to learn about lead acid battery quirks from people who've lived with lead acid for half as long as I've been alive, even if I think they make some pretty dumb decisions in life. I know they question some of my decisions back.
Anyway, your mind is clearly settled and the issue is closed on this particular bit of writings. You might go find some of SunKing's rants about "max smoke charging" useful as well, if you're dealing with off grid lead, but I guarantee you won't like him much as a person either.
Conspiracy-theory-ism is an "emotions" problem, not an "intelligence" problem.
What you’re doing is conducting an ad hominem attack, assuming that this dude’s views on one topic have any relevance to the accuracy of a completely different topic (with a nearly decade gap nonetheless).
Everyone makes mistakes, and I've been known to rescind my references and recommendations upon making such discoveries.
In this case all it takes is simply loading the referenced page, the hogwash is front and center. Give me a break.
Why?
If person A makes some claim about subject X at some point in time, and you find it true and worth sharing, what then makes their claims invalid if you discover later that person A believes something you find distasteful? If their statement about X was true at the point in time it was made, is it any less true if you discover you can't stand the person?
What if you read a book by someone who makes well written arguments and an enjoyable read, and then attend a book signing years later and realize that they have rancid BO or something, and are oddly vocal about [insert some fetish you find exceedingly disgusting here]? Does the character of the author you discover later impact the arguments in the previous book?
It's a really odd and, IMO, exceedingly broken filter for what sources of information you're willing to consider. It makes it really easy to never go outside your own head, because anyone who believes all the same things you do can't have anything terribly interesting to teach you, and anyone who believes different things can be spun as somehow abominable.
I'm not nearly so arrogant as to think I know everything. I'm certain there are things I'm wrong about, though I've no idea what they are at the moment. I'm equally certain that I have rather different opinions about subjects than many of the people I interact with, either in person or online. Some of them make for interesting conversations (I prefer a fire pit, pipe or cigars, and a bit of whiskey to make things civil), some of them we simply agree not to discuss, and that's fine.
You understand that most everybody who was born in the first part of the 20th century or earlier believed quite a few things that we now consider pretty abhorrent.