well, he does use terms like "the global warming scam" and "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist" which are typically associated with denialists.
True, but I give him credit for using words a little more precisely than your average media hack. It's clear to me from the context that by "scam" and "fraud" he means not the simple claim that the climate is warming, nor even the claim that humans may be causing at least a portion of it, but the whole edifice that's been erected to drive certain political policies that are not justified by the state of the science, and to suppress any suggestion that those policies might not be justified.
agreed, the main tone of his article is somebody lamenting "scientists behaving badly" and remarking on the changes since the good old days. no idea whether or not he's a denialist, i was just trying to highlight that the language he uses could lead people to assume that.
