"As someone who is not a climatologist, but who does have a scientific education and background, I am forced to rely on the opinions of the majority of climatologists and scientific organizations which do identify AGW as a serious environmental problem with potential disastrous consequences. "

But the bird flu is a serious environmental problem with potential disastrous consequences.

Processing human waste is a serious environmental problem with potential disastrous consequences.

It's not quantitative. And if not quantitative, in terms of science, lacks specific meaning.

AGW is certainly a problem- it's not easy to resolve, it's difficult to measure, etc, ect.
Btw, if humans were actually, significantly affecting global temperature, there could good news related to this, it would tend to indicate that human could do things which have some significant affect upon climate- if we can warm the planet then it's possible we could cool it.
Perhaps, if there was some way one could warm or cool the planet, some people would say doing either could have "disastrous consequences".
More specifically, and rather minor in comparison, suppose there was a way to cause rain. Being able to cause rain would have many benefits- but it certainly possible that doing this could have "disastrous consequences".
Same goes from preventing earthquakes.

What is really being said is different kinds of weather or climate can have "disastrous consequences". Which unless you were a fool, is not "news" to most people.

In summary what your claiming is not particularly surprising and even less surprising considering that these organizations could want public money.

But with all that said, I would like to see some references to "majority of climatologists and scientific organizations"
making this claim. Because if I'm quite sure that since they are scientists they will make more specific arguments, then simply "AGW as a serious environmental problem with potential disastrous consequences".

"Does this mean AGW is the truth, and that its predictors and proponents must be correct? Of course not. Consensus opinions in science have been demonstrated to be wrong before. But given my own lack of intimate knowledge on the subject, and my respect for the established scientific community and peer-reviewed research, I must choose the position I have taken. Who do you expect me to believe, the National Academy of Science, or the Association of American Petroleum Geologists?"

Speaking of NAS:
"More recently, the National Academy of Sciences considered the matter. On June 22, 2006, the Academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,[27] supporting Mann's more general assertion regarding the last decades of the Twentieth Century, but showing less confidence in his assertions regarding individual decades or years, due to the greater uncertainty at that level of precision.

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

"There is one final item, since we are dealing with probabilities and not certainties in this debate. The denialists are going to have to convince me that there is a sinister or aberrant reason why AGW has received the support of the preponderance of climate scientists and responsible academic and scientific organizations concerned with this issue. Is there an international conspiracy, some self-justifying meme, or simply an intellectual fashion gone beserk that has relegated your position to a minority, if not a fringe position? You are going to have to explain to me why so many people and groups I trust have deliberately chosen to be mistaken and ignore the evidence you seem to find so self-evident."

I don't agree "AGW has received the support of the preponderance of climate scientists and responsible academic and scientific organizations concerned with this issue."
But you can't deny that money wouldn't play any role.
Nor can you deny that there isn't a significant amount political pressure being employed. I would point out if there was more scientific agreement in this matter- less "political force" would be needed.
Nor can you deny that this is largely political pressure from the Left [Yes, I know McCain believed in it, so does Bush apparently], but my point is this is a political effort and that political "force" is mostly of the Left. The Left has a horrible track record in regards getting any science right.
The left are violent and don't employ reason as much as emotion.

"Or, while we're speculating, isn't it just as, if not more, likely that the denialist position is supported and promoted by economic and political interests which find the idea of possible economic controls and regulations anathema and will stop at nothing to put a stop to them? To me, this seems to be a much more reasonable assumption."

Well, as you might be aware, I am interested in space exploration and want more nuclear reactors build and used. Both these could be politically aligned to solving this problem. So, if I thought AGW was a significant problem that needed solving- my issues actually would solve the problem. Unlike say ethanol- which makes more CO2 emission, or wind or solar which are not viable solutions to the problem.
Now, space exploration could solve the coming problem of returning to ice age conditions. Now that's probably pretty far into the future, but we going to be in really bad shape if we aren't in space at that time.

And I don't think that the govt taking over the private sector, will do anything in regards to reducing CO2 or having any affects upon global temperature. Now, driving us into a depression will have some effect, but it's short term, which could also cause global wars and mayhem in general. And China produces more CO2 than the US. What will happen if the economy stalls significantly- is that emergency actions could cause significantly more CO2 emission and environmental damage.