To be fair, though, even if he had displayed a "pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money is not a valid argument against his climate science.
It's reason enough. The scientist has demonstrated that he is deceptive and not trustworthy. I'm not going to sift through the bullshit to find a nugget of truth when I've got better sources with which to work.
He did it twice! After getting kicked out of a top-tier university, he got a job at some obscure place, then got kicked out of that. Maybe he's a genius who sees things that 99% of climate scientists don't see, but can't follow basic institutional rules. I'll remain skeptical.
But it is a reason to disbelieve any of his claims and any data that he has generated. The logic can be trusted if one can go back to other data generators.
At that point, what purpose does he serve as a scientist? Are you going to go check all his citations and make sure that he's not misapplying them?