You can admit that, or lose what little credibility you have and keep denying it. For someone to claim that there isnt a consensus means on one of two things:

1) They have not looked into the issue very carefully, or

2) They are deliberately lying.

So where do you stand? Be honest, will you admit that there IS a consensus or not?

I'm aware of the references.

IF that is the case, then why did you make the claim? I set you up because I knew you would parrot the party line, and you did it flawlessly and predictably. The article you cited was easily shown to be crap! If you knew it was crap, then what does that say about your intellectual honesty?

If you recall, the implication in Noeske's (sic) work is that there is NO serious questioning by scientists.

That is not true at all. Oreskes' article was making the point that claims that there wasn't a consensus were simply NOT TRUE! You have a problem with the methodology of counting articles? Fine, I am not thrilled with it either- but it does not change the fact that there is a consensus on this issue, You saw my list of scientific organizations saying so.
Peiser implied he had a such a list backing him up, and cited one example- turns out it was his only example and AAPG has since backed away from their stance.

Serious science is being done on this issue, and it confirms the past findings that anthropogenic global warming is real. Her point was that this serious science is finding nothing that really contradicts the demonstrated fact.

From the article:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

You have a choice to make, TB, you can accept the rigorous and peer reviewed science, or you can abandon reason and cling to the party line. Your choice, but the latter gets you NO respect from those you hope to convince... you'd be better off spouting it on the right wing blogs you frequent, because HERE there are a few of us that HAVE looked into it and we wont hesitate to call you on dishonest crap.

There ARE areas where legitimate argument can be made, how bad will it be, is the cost of prevention more than what would be gained, what is the best action to take.... etc. But to argue that it isnt real to begin with is just flat out false.

I'd be a lot happier if the scientific "consensus" community came down half as hard on those claiming New York was going to be under ten feet of water as they do those who claim the water isn't going to rise at all.

Well cry me a river! I dont really care what makes you happier. They tend to spend more time fighting ignorant asses that are braying that their legitimate work is junk science, and trying to lable their work, with lies, as nonsense that goverment needs to put a stop to - what a shock!! This surprises you? REALLY?!

The hysteria is encouraged, and promoted, not judged on its merits or lack thereof.

Fine, the media pushes hysteria and worstcase scenarios- and this just in: The sun continues to rise! Just because there are some that hype the risk to ridiculous levels does NOT mean there isnt a serious risk!

I read the IPCC reports. Worst case scenarios given in there are nothing approaching what we're being sold in schools, TV specials, and newspaper columns.

FINE, then argue that point, but dont insult our intelligence and yours by claiming the science isnt there!!!

I stand by my position that, other than the basic researchers, this entire issue is primarily being used as a political weapon.

I agree- YOU are the one that chooses to view and sell this as a political weapon- thats your damn problem, not mine. Just dont you DARE stoop to lying about the science in front of me, or the others here who have actually educated themselves on this.