By far the most balanced study of climate change that I've read is Climate of Extremes by Michaels (former professor of meteorology at U. Virginia, now at the Cato Institute) and Balling.
As climatologists (rather than pundits), Michaels and Balling do not deny the existence of warming trends, nor that human CO2 output has played a role. What they do deny is that there is any scientific basis for the apocalyptic scenarios of extreme temperature spikes, sea level rises flooding coastal cities, chronic hurricanes, and all of the other disasters that we hear about in the media. They also conclude that the economic costs of dealing with the realistic effects of anthropogenic climate change (local desertification, small sea level rises) are far less than the economic costs of trying to minimize C02 emissions.
Michaels and Balling are climatologists, and their line of argument strikes the most sensible balance between those who claim that the end is nigh thanks to C02 emissions, and those who deny the possibility of billions of humans and their industry having some kind of impact on atmospheric chemistry.
"And yet, as James Hansen, the (former) head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'”
"If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch."
Close enough for government work! Most agree that hasn't warmed since the late nineties.