I listened to the Q&A and didn’t hear any “dismissing” of climate sceptics.
So unless there was another bit I missed it sounds like there is some poisoning of the well going on here.
May *did* discuss the importance of including dissidents where science was uncertain, but also he pointed out that where the public were getting the wrong end of the stick of the state of science due to a preponderance of “dissident” publicity, the media preference for dissident views and the preference of people to accept dissident views, that bodies such as the RS should *consider* getting involved to rebalance the argument towards the science.