The fact of the matter is that the guy is flat-out wrong, and easily shown to be so. The only things a competent scientist can do is debunk him or ignore him. There's no third option. Which would you prefer? You've complained about both.
Surely you know of cases of both "ganging upon" and shunning. Consider the old practice of tarring, feathering, running out of town on a rail and being told never to come back.
What would I prefer? I would prefer that scientists stick to the scientific process instead of jumping to conclusions and not considering hypotheses which would contradict that which already seems demonstrated by the SP --and as you know, it becomes difficult to claim thoroughgoing "proof." I think Copernicus would have the same preference.
Further, there is no room for ad hominem in the SP.