I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out where the bar for "consensus" is being set. Apparently, unless a scientist is willing to stand up and say he knows beyond all doubt that climate change is not driven by human activity, he is not considered a dissenting view.

In other words, someone who says "we have found no absolute evidence either way" or "we see some problems with how the science is being done" is not considered to be in disagreement with someone who says that it has been proven beyond doubt that the problem is human activity.

Is this where the lines should be drawn?

A lot of these papers point to the "consensus" and say, you know, you could be wrong about some things, and here are some numbers.