I think most of the actual science is pretty good. It's when people start talking about what should be done about global warming that things get dicey.
This is why Bjorn Lomborg is reviled: not because he doubts that anthropogenic global warming is for real, but because he has the temerity to suggest that the cure (spending a kajillion dollars to achieve relatively small changes in climate) may be worse than the disease. See http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie....
And dancing about, declaring that the science is settled, and claiming to know the One True Solution to something as inherently complex as climate is indicative of failure to understand the science, which leads to politically motivated footballs like this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-conf...
I personally disklike him because in his speeches (like the TED one) he seemed to make a lot of strawman arguments - like dwelling on "heat deaths being a non-issue" when really I don't think it ever was an issue.
Sure, but I don't think fear of an increase of heat deaths was an major concern in the climate debate. At least I never heard about it before the Lomborg talk. And I think he made it clear (if he is to believed), that heat deaths indeed are not a thing to worry about with climate change.
I don't have a problem with the science exactly but rather the predictions that have been made from that science. Predicting the future is very difficult and I'd really like to see more discussion of that when this issue comes up.
