Yes, no different than random articles posted here containing similar kinds of information about warming/melting/drought events. It's typically used as a bull**** method of indirect argumentation, as is what I cited. I presume you're not saying someone shouldn't criticize that website because there are other silly people out there engaging in similar tactics but with a different axe to grind, right? Bull**** is bull****, and should be labelled as such. I would encourage you also to call out the obvious examples of it that you clearly are thinking of, instead of just starting off with your "whatabout this!" statement, that gives the strong impression that you seem to think I am willing to put up with all other kinds of nonsense and only call this out because of some particular bent I have. That's not a particularly effective way of convincing me, or anyone for that matter.
I typically don't post in here because I'm not nearly as well-versed in the details of climate science the way many here are, but it doesn't take a meteorologist to assess the quality of all meteorologically-related material. Marshaling a set of facts doesn't in itself make for a useful exposition without some analysis or thesis to tie those facts together. I frankly didn't see any at that site, and I found it's constant grandiose references to the sunspot cycle as some uber-important driver of climate conditions on the ground to be off-putting. I would be less off-put if the author simply stated his position, and then offered a cogent argument as to why he thinks it's right.
You seem to be passionate about this topic, so let me offer something I'm hoping we agree on. The Earth's climate is complex, and your recent posts seem to indicate you feel the same way. Discerning the truth abut a complex system is hard enough, but it becomes doubly or triply hard when people spew out poorly-constructed arguments advocating some particular viewpoint and demand that we spend the time to evaluate in detail their claims. Frankly, that's just impossible because it's easy to spin out lots of bull**** (which often contains many facts, a good sprinkling of them is critical to the effective bull****ter) but much harder to paw through it all and explain in detail to someone why it's bull****. That's why I posted my warning about that site after someone posted what I now realize was a clickbait message to entice people to go look at it. It has all the markers of someone spewing the kind of time-wasting bull**** I described above. If the person who runs that site wants to get people to take the time to consider their arguments, they should present them in a way that says they can be taken seriously, and trusted not to be engaging in bogus argumentation. I don't think that is too much to ask.