Linked from your reference:

"According to Merriam-Webster’s Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary, a “consensus” may refer to general agreement, unanimity, judgment by most of those concerned, or group solidarity. Of course if we use the “unanimity” definition of “consensus”, then Robinson’s Global Warming Petition Project shows that a consensus of persons with science degrees, even those with relevant degrees, does not support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. But this is a trivial conclusion; we knew this before the petition drive! The “unanimity” definition of “consensus”, however, is not the one in which the American public is interested."

Really, how does he draw this conclusion about what the American public is interested in?
Continues:

"If Robinson had been conducting a true survey, he would have offered an operational definition of “consensus” before he started his inquiry. Robinson misleads the public to think that a consensus is defined by some large absolute number of persons. It is not. It is determined by a large percentage of persons in a relevant sample. Does Robinson, or the general public, think of a consensus as agreement within a given group at a level of 75%, 90%, or some other percentage? He does not tell us. He reports only the number of persons who sent back signed petition cards, but he reports neither the total number of persons to whom he sent petition cards in the first place nor the number of persons to whom he sent petition cards who subsequently returned only messages of disagreement. Since Robinson chose to conduct a petition project rather than a well-designed scientific survey, he cannot reach valid conclusions about any consensus, and he should not have attempted to do so."
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html#feature

I think the point is the "debate" isn't over. Nor are people that voice disagreement aren't Hitler sympathizer or a kin to holocaust deniers, or even like the large number of kooky believers of UFOs [including many scientists].

Now, I want a list of scientists who claim that global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically within a century.
Or [it does not have to be "and"] that global warming so far has killed anyone.
Or that CO2 levels will double within 50 years.
Or that global temperatures will rise by 2 or more C within 50 years.
Or that does not think the Little Ice age was not a global climatic affect.
Or who claims that rising CO2 levels have caused most of the warming in the 20th Century- so, .4 C or more of the global increase in temperature.
Or that thinks the climate computer models provide an accurate prediction of future global temperatures a century or more into the future. Or that they can even accurately predict 10 ten years into the future.
Or who does not think that within last 1/2 million years that global temperatures have not been significantly warmer than today [and for very long periods of time].
Or who disputes that within the last few million years we have been in a long period of cooling- that we are in an Ice age period and at the present we are in a period called correctly, an interglacial period.
Or doesn't think glaciers around the world grew significantly during the Little Ice age- and that glaciers had retreated significantly prior to the Little Ice age for thousands of years.
Or that Global warming killed any polar bears.
Or that arctic temperature are significant warmer now than compared to other times within last 100 years, or within last few thousand years.

If you provide a list of say 100 that would good enough.
Or 10 that believe in any one of the above points.

Or any scientist who claim Al Gore's presentation is 100% accurate and thinks it couldn't misled people and isn't guilty of exaggeration & "dramatization".

Or any scientist which could support the view that Ted Turner gave:
'CNN founder Ted Turner argued that inaction on global warming “will be catastrophic” and those who don't die “will be cannibals.” '