Lewis doesn't need to post all the articles in the other direction, because most everyone else is busy posting them. No point in spending time writing the same stories everyone else does.
You can argue that's wrong, that he's biased, and so forth, but either you think he's doing it because he's chasing clicks (in which case you fell into his trap) or he's trying to brainwash people into believing like he does (in which case you're wasting your time reading this article, because you're already brainwashed in the other direction)
He may go off the deep end with some of his stuff, but it is hard to argue that the idea that headlines like "4th lowest ice extent ever" that don't point out the records in this case go back a mere 35 years, is as much propaganda in the pro-AGW direction as his articles are in the anti.'
And that's the problem, both sides are trying to sell their goods and conveniently leave out the "inconvenient truths" that don't point in their direction. Does Lewis leave out a lot of stuff in his articles that don't support his position? Damn straight, but if you think that's not true for articles that support the opposite position, you're brainwashed rather than thinking critically.
I used to be a pretty strong believer in the pro-AGW side until I learned more about how severely the temperature records are adjusted - and always mysteriously down in the past and up more recently. That really disturbs me, and if you are willing to overlook or dismiss that you are as close minded as those who think it is all a hoax by people who can make a buck off 'green' technologies. I badly would like to see results that are COMPLETELY unadjusted to see what they look like but they do not exist - in fact adjustments are being done on previously adjusted data which only makes the problem worse.