Sorry? Sure, don't feel the need to believe any of their refutations, but you can follow their links to her statements and decide whether or not you agree with her take.
My point was that what you wrote was the opposite of convincing. If I start googling everything myself, then sure. I wouldn't have had any problem with your comment if you just wrote "here are her views, and here are the rebuttals", like the page you linked to does, and like the other commenters have already done in this thread. As it stands, your comment isn't ad hominem, but saying she is a bit of a skeptic is wrong-headed as a way to point out that she's wrong on climate science, it does less than nothing to advance that point.
Okay, that makes sense, I agree with you there. Thanks for making that point. What maybe would have been better and a less normative way to make the point is that she has as track record of writing and making statements that advance claims that are outside the mainstream of climate science.