There may be some value to critical thinking if you're talking about say, the source of the 'evidence'.   But the writer is absurdly off base to suggest his amateur rhetorical skills are up to the challenge of disputing scientific evidence.   Maybe he can make a case for 2 + 2 = 5 or the the world is flat, but that would just fill the seats on a ship of fools.

Finishing with the idea that the world scientific community hasn't considered that that plants convert carbon dioxide, or that they haven't looked at historical periods of past warming,  is just foolish drivel.   

I do agree with Richard that the public would be well served by teaching critical thinking.   What I can't tell is if critical thinkings wasn't  taught in Richard's schools, or does he just disrespected his teachers enough that he wasn't listening.   

One more plank of ignorance in the anti-science conservative movement of the last 20 years.