Grounds for an ethics complaint? UK math prof. publicly misrepresenting results from an unrelated discipline I'm a Ph.D. candidate in social sciences and last month I presented and defended my thesis in an Eastern European university. The full text of my thesis is available to the public. A couple of weeks after my defense, a math professor from the U.K. wrote a blog post in which he utterly misrepresents my results and suggests that my work is pseudo-science. His opinion does not deal with statistics or any other parts that may be a common ground for mathematics and social sciences. When I tried to publicly defend my work on his blog and to point out that his claims are malicious and untenable, he accused me of homophobia, implied that I am a psychopath, and said that the methods I'm using have driven people to suicide (none of which is true, but rather nonsensical - I had a serious WTF experience when reading these claims). 

All of the above happened on a niche blog that is widely read among my colleagues, and I fear that it will affect my career as a researcher. Some signs show that this may have already happened. I want to file an ethics complaint against this professor at his university and I would like to hear whether the above are sufficient ground for such a complaint. Do university ethics committees dealing with other cases beside research misconduct and harassment? Should I present this as a research misconduct case or as something else? I feel that this belongs to presenting flawed interpretation of data and misrepresentation of qualifications or experience which is not held (a math professor thrashing social science research), but I do not think that a blog post would qualify as 'research' at all.
First, and foremost, be very cautious about taking this issue outside of the scientific realm of argument.  If you start to file ethics charges or libel lawsuits, then you are likely to be casting yourself in the role of censorious scientific villain, and it is likely to not go well for you.

Instead, if you feel that your work really is scientifically defensible, I recommend that you stick entirely to the evidence to defend it.  If you cannot do so, then that is a serious problem --- having not read your thesis, I have no idea whether you or your critic has a better case.  Do note, however, that being in a different discipline does not immunize you from a person's criticism: a critic need not have any credential at all to point out a potential flaw in your work, and the nature of science is that if you cannot defend against criticism, your work cannot stand.

Finally, I would strongly recommend talking to your advisor before you take any further steps and strongly heeding their advice.  Your advisor is likely to know better than you whether to take your critic seriously, given the state of your work and the field, as well as what types of response are likely to be wise or foolish.