Now I watched it. While he sprinkles a few true statements his argumentation is simply not worthy of a scientist. It's really a shame that a scientist is willing to embarrass himself like that. I don't know what happens to some scientists when they stop being active. After this performance I would definitely question his research in general.

This video is full of ad hominem and strawman arguments: He holds a grudge against Obama, why would that be relevant to reiterate in a scientific talk? That alone is enough for me to totally dismiss him as relevant.

But more importantly: Notice how many times he makes up an ad hoc theory he then claims to be a global warming theory with specific expected consequences, which he then goes on to prove wrong. It should be obvious even to someone with a minimum of scientific experience that most of those strawman theories are totally bogus. This is why you shouldn't trust someone like him, and shouldn't take "Nobel laureate" as guarantee for quality.

I suggest you start by writing down every single theory he presents in his talk and figure out how he arrived at them and how he determined them as valid expressions of what climate researchers have to say.

It's easy enough to construct all kinds of far fetched theories which you can then prove wrong. If you ascribe those theories to someone else your aim is to prove them wrong on the basis of something they never claimed themselves. In this case his strawmen are even very simplistic and unsophisticated. I would have expected better from someone who's won a Nobel prize.