I don't read it as such. The article says that he bemoans that an industry has exploited the natural skepticism embedded in the scientific process. Which of course means that he has no problem with skepticism since he describes it as a natural embedment, or part, of science. Therefore, he can't have any more of a problem with promoting a skeptical view than promoting the view itself. The exception to this is only when the promotion of a view, skeptical or not, makes use of deliberate misinformation. And that takes us back to the assessment of whether or not misinformation is justifiable as a mean to a goal.