Science is done by human beings not government funded associations. If you wish to claim a consensus exits you must certainly be able to name a number of scientists from the large majority who are not paid by government, who support it.
I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmists now totalling in the 10s of thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.
There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.
The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

Neil craig, I know this isn’t what you asked for – but for me, I don’t care if “global warming”, “climate change” or whatever one wishes to call it – is agreed upon by scientists.
For me, it’s about having respect for the Earth and not continuing to mindlessly pollute it, whether or not our planet is capable of cleaning up our mess. WE are capable of doing better, and we should work toward that goal.
For those who follow an Earth-based religion, our planet is not some staging area where humans are the primary focus. The EARTH is the primary focus, and we share our existence here with all of the other forms of life. It is our home, our sacred space. It should not treated as though it were acceptable for it to be polluted, experimented upon or otherwise disrespected.

Neil Craig-
I am sure that for you the American Chamber of Commerce dwarfs in its scientific wisdom the vast majority of scientific organizations world wide. Try this one on for size http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7050341.ece
But of course, universities often are publicly funded, aren’t they?
You have dishonestly defined your “challenge” in such terms as to make it impossible to rebut, using a tactic the imbeciles who defend Genesis as a literal account of creation would likely admire.
Your ignorance about how science works is too great for me to try and respond to it here.

Absolutely Gus! Asking for a Scientist that receives no funding from the government is like asking for a Doctor that has never worked in a Hospital! Since every Scientist must have been trained in a University in order to be a Scientist, expecting an “independent” Scientist to have never received Government funding is as absurd as looking for a silver blade of grass to prove that plants are green!

@Cassaundra-
“Since every Scientist must have been trained in a University in order to be a Scientist, expecting an “independent” Scientist to have never received Government funding is as absurd as looking for a silver blade of grass to prove that plants are green!”
There’s a difference between a scientist who was educated by “government” funds and a scientist who works for a government department or agency.
Since this post is about a list, here’s another one:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
This one is a list of 690 things that global warming is supposed to have influenced or created, with a link to the supporting article or news item for each item on the list. Many items, such as “Atlantic less salty” and “Atlantic more salty” are blatantly contradictory.
In 1974, the National Science Foundation predicted that millions of people will starve to death from the global cooling we were supposedly heading into (1). In 1975, Newsweek ran an article on the imminent threat of global cooling (2). Two years before, the National Science Board declared that:
“Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now” (3)
I just looked outside the window, and we’re clearly not in the middle of a freeze. National Science Foundation…National Science Board…both sound like government agencies to me.
Will the climate change? Yes. Can we predict what things will be like 20+ years from now? Since we didn’t have massive starvation casualties in 1990, I’d say no. Are we, as humans, to blame for whatever happens? Maybe. Maybe not. I know we can have a hand in the change, but to what extent and to what direction I can’t say.
I listen to the proponents of global warming with interest, but then I remember that this is the first white Christmas Copenhagen has had in 14 years; that friends of mine in Del Rio, TX have had AF pilot training cancelled for snow days; that all my friends on the East Coast were hammered relentlessly this winter; that the polar bear population rose from 5000 in 1950 to ~25000 in 2008; and that the British Antarctic Survey found the Antarctic shelf to have grown by 10% since 1980 (a land mass the size of Great Britain).
As someone who works for the government (non-climate related) I take EVERYTHING a government owned or sponsored agency says with a huge grain of salt. Most people who work for the fed and try to influence others are, from my personal experience, out to better themselves or their own image and not to bolster the greater good.
(1) http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6l53f/greatnoncatastrophesofthelate20thcentury/
(2) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/661876/posts
(3) http://www.archive.org/details/patternsperspect00nati, page 55

I believe even people who do not have a science background/training will consensus on Global Warming if they see the images of global temperature graft. A picture is better than a thousand words.
The only disagreement I have is that I believe the most effective solution to curb global warming is through a food choice. That is “Don’t eat meat”, as suggested by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chief of United Nation’s Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change (IPCC).
The reason is very simple. We just do not have time to wait for a maturation of green technologies when the global temp is already near 1 degree above the baseline. Not to mention that not everyone can afford to implement the green technology. In contrary, a diet change is something that any one can start doing it and make a change from next meal.
Environmental leaders should consider and encourage a solution of plant-based diet to buy more time for green technology’s development .