A good starting point for people who are interested in rebutting or becoming sceptics. Joking aside, it seems like a good introduction to the current state of what appears to be an impasse between the sceptics and mainstream science that is shaping up to rival that of intelligent design proponents and evolution.

By pairing the "Sceptic" and "Counter" arguments side by side, the impression is given that scientists are somehow equally divided on a "Point/Counterpoint" question. This may be unavoidable, but is simply not true. Nevertheless, the tone is measured and invites intelligent follow up inquiry.

The reason I think this article is good is because climate questions have become similar to religious questions. There are true believers who hold to an article of faith on both sides. Facts and data do help understanding and the more people become informed the more truth may prevail. This piece does not depend on comments from individual and possibly popular voices but collects information from diverse sources.

This article is interesting, and reasonably fair to skeptics, but I think it also cherry picks "myths" that it has pat answers for, ignoring the ones that it doesn't have answers for. At least one "Yes, this is a good point, we need more research here" would have made the story better. For example, cloud effects are still not well understood, and are just assumed to be positive feedbacks.