For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers . Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming."
This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends.
It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate".
There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer reviewed.
The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better qualified in that field than I am.
We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render all of it suspect in any honest observer's mind.
However, it must be said "peer review" is no guarantee of scientific purity, the peer review system is subject to being gamed and can exhibit severe bias against unconventional approaches or novel findings.
One version is the "file-drawer effect", operative in a range of science publishing. For example, accepting drug studies showing positive results but not those where drug treatment doesn't separate from placebo gives a falsely favorable impression of the effectiveness of the drug.
Logically we could assert that in the presence of bias toward publishing climate studies supporting warming vs. reports not showing warming, the credibility of widely quoted results becomes questionable.
It's natural, healthy and desirable for serious students of a subject to disagree. OTOH whenever political force imposes suppression of opposing points of view the process of science grinds to a halt, leaving only pseudo-scientific mythology in its place.