My only critique is that Ridley thinks Global Warming is somewhat unique in how it's bent "Science". He mentions a few other examples (dietary Fat, Lysenkoism), but I personally don't think climate science is particularly unique. Much of what we call "Science" is not science in the sense of rigorously tested hypotheses.
Their pitch is "Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"
I've enjoyed using it in the past when I do run into people who are most flagrantly abusing any of the common "denier" lines of reasoning, some of which (despite the site's arguments) I still have issues with (i.e. see above for my version of "models are unreliable").
The lukewarmer stance most directly opposes the "It's not bad" argument, which they poke at at https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm, and they have "basic"/"intermediate"/"advanced" citations to the literature, depending on the audience. It's the closest thing I've seen to what you were mentioning that you wish you had.