The Royal Society of New Zealand has issued an interesting statement on the shambles that is climate science. Prof Keith Hunter's position is nuanced and seems a long way from the political utterances of the Royal Society. Hunter's is not a sceptic position, but there is at least some common ground.
There is one rather interesting contradiction in his paper though. Hunter seems to recognise that the peer review process has been undermined:
The emails illegally hacked from the UEA Climate Research Unit mail server reveal the bitter frustration felt by some prominent climate researchers with the small but very vocal community of people who dispute their findings. However, this frustration does not justify appearing to conspire against other scientists who are genuinely sceptical and seek to publish their views in scientific journals.
But then he goes on to say:
At the same time, of course, it is only fair to expect the critics of the mainstream scientific views on climate change (and other contentious areas of science) to adopt an equally transparent approach with their own information, and with their own use and re-analysis of data entrusted to the public domain. They should also subject their findings to rigorous peer review.
The contradiction is clear. Sceptics, as we know, are largely excluded from the scientific literature, where peer review acts as a barrier to dissenting views.
My advice to Professor Hunter would be to concentrate on replication and the availability of data and code, which, as we know, is the norm among sceptics.