I have an opinion piece in Canada's Financial Post, taking a look at the global warming consensus as revealed in a series of studies, including the Cook one.
Once the methodology used by Cook and his colleagues is understood, it becomes abundantly clear that the consensus it describes is a very shallow one; the results add up to little more than “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” and “mankind affects the climate.” These are propositions that almost everybody in the climate debate accepts; the argument continues to be over how much greenhouse gases have affected us in the past and how much they will affect us in the future, and whether any of this represents a problem.
By coincidence, John Cook has been given the right of reply to my piece last week in the Australian looking at the same question. There's a lot of huffing and puffing, but I don't think he nails it.