I agree that is probably the argument for his prize. However, my point is that he has seriously damaged science and that, in my judgement, would reduce his suitability for the Nobel. I would balance his career work — if he made a significant discovery or advanced a new and explanatory theory, that would be diminished if his hobby was public dishonesty about matters that effect the lives of a great many people. I am not suggesting that is his situation, but if that was the case, the prize would be unwarranted. How could anyone determine where his honest science left off and his dishonest activities took over. Could you trust his research?
You demonstrate the same lack of comprehension of how the scientific world operates as most people. You seem to think that a scientists work is relied upon as somehow being trusted and becomes some sort of gospel, prescription or recipe that is blindly followed, but that is never the case.
An influential scientist paper only becomes influential because other scientits read the paper and discovers that the paper provides a way of analyzing a problem or measuring a phenomenon that others had not thought of before. The solution demonstrated, however, other scientists will replicate that calculation or that experiment for their own purposes. Either they will verify the result, confirming the original paper or refuting it.
The only advantage that a scientist's reputation brings him is that his papers will be more broadly read than those of other scientists. It means that they are also more carefully scrutinized than other scientists, and if he starts turning out whacky or incorrect stuff, his reputation will vanish in meteoric splendor. A flash and then gone.