This is amazing and really goes to show the dude, no matter how good his intentions may be, is a hypocrite. One rule for him, different rules for everyone else.
But this basic argument from hypocrisy is applied to a lot of people, and it's a weak case.
If someone is using an appreciable fraction of their fortune to decarbonize the grid, and otherwise make industrial civilization sustainable, they can fly private jets as much as they like. Ultimately, carbon in the atmosphere is a simple game of addition. If Gates Brand nuclear plants take 100GW of coal and natural gas offline, I don't care if the man lives on an airplane with a whole second fleet for in-flight refueling, because it doesn't matter.
The reason the hypocrisy argument sucks is that, by definition, you can only apply it to rich people who see a problem with climate change and are doing something about it.
The many wealthy private-jet owners who are invested in fuel extraction don't even get mentioned. They get wealthy when carbon emissions get worse, and then spend their wealth jetting around.
Can you link me to the page which tracks Mohamed bin Sultan's jet travel? No? I believe I've made my point.
Mohamed bin Sultan did not claim that polar bears might be dead by 2020 and that Florida will be under water by 2030, hence he can't be a hypocrite.
Yes, hypocrisy can only be be applied to someone who claims something, argues for a certain something. The fact that everyone does not beleive in apocalyptic global warming destroying mankind by 2020 still means that the people who do can be hypocrites.
But then the real question is why hypocrisy is so bad. All of us are hypocrites in different ways, on different things. Why is being a hypocrite on climate change worse than being wilfully ignorant?