Summary: some people pretend to be thoughtfully considering, but really they're just mean old baddies. The list of mean-old-baddies is below. don't let them trick you! You'll go to hell! We are the goodies. We believe. Follow us and be saved. [See article for list of Satan's minions.]
There was a common smugness to the tone of the article - borne of the comfort of parroting conventional/majority opinions - which your summary/comment makes explicit. Thanks.
This seems uncharacteristic of Shermer. He, of course, is not the only one. In fact, most debate, and AGW debate in particular, has this character: the proponent claims overwhelming evidence, but shows none. It's like playing poker with someone who wants to claim the winnings without showing you their hand.
I would prefer to see more "How I was convinced..." type of stuff. I've seen more of that on the side of the skeptics/deniers, probably because they are the underdog, and so more likely to be forthcoming. It doesn't make them right, but it does coerce them into being better proponents.