The intention of the original post was simple: is there or is there not a scientific consensus on global warming? The fact that 31,000 scientists signed a petition rejecting the theory of anthropocentric global warming, including the distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson, proves that there is no consensus. To not alter your assumptions in light of this fact is to beg the question, which a lot of commentators on this board are doing; in other words, to argue from a position that what is under contention is already true. It's either bad logic or bad faith. As John Maynard Keynes once said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir."
On another note. The idea that environmentalists are pure of motive while "deniers" - as those who are not persuaded by the consensus view are called - are in the pay of big business or are in some way just lining their own pockets is nonsense. A whole worldwide industry has grown around this issue with thousands of environmental activists in academia, government departments, scientific institutions, and environmental organizations making a very good living from it.
Either way, whether global warming is true or not, people will die, as they are already dying from the global food shortage caused by the environmentally inspired change to ethanol production. Nobody on either side of this controversy holds the high moral ground.
In the end, what we are left with are two groups of scientists with opposing views. We have to evaluate the evidence not the scientists' politics.