For anyone involved in TCP, here are articles you must read to get the full history of context:

Rosenberg et al. (2010).

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO030002.shtml

(free pdf) http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf

(Authors surveyed scientists via questionaire to derive consensus percentages.)

Related / background papers:

(Social science / social psychology / media studies)

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCrightDunlap2000.pdf

The framing of counter-consensus arguments.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1454056&show=abstract

Media’s social construction of environmental issues:

"... our research demonstrates that the U.S. with differing industries, predominantly dominated by the fossil fuel industry, in comparison to New Zealand and Finland has a significant impact on the media coverage of global warming. The U.S’s media states that global warming is controversial and theoretical, yet the other two countries portray the story that is commonly found in the international scientific journals."

http://www.desmogproject.mobi/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Boykoff.Boykoff.GEC_.2004.pdf

Media bias, so-called 'balance'.

Expert credibility in climate change (Anderegg et al. 2010) [abstract, full text]

The scientific consensus of climate change revisited (Bray, 2010) [abstract, full text]

Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time (Whitmarsh, 2011) [abstract, full text (DOC)]

Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change (Poortinga et al. 2011) [abstract]

And references therein.

Public understanding of climate change in the United States (Weber & Stern, 2011) [abstract, full text]

Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? (O'Neill & Boykoff, 2010) [abstract]

Reply to O’Neill and Boykoff: Objective classification of climate experts (Anderegg et al. 2010) [abstract]

Expert credibility and truth (Aarstad, 2010) [abstract]

Reply to Aarstad: Risk management versus “truth” (Anderegg et al. 2010) [abstract]

Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities (Anderegg et al. 2010) [abstract]

Simulations of opinion changes in scientific communities (Sobkowicz, 2011) [abstract, full text]

There Is No 'Consensus' by Richard Lindzen

One of the main attackers of TCP will be “No Frakking Consensus” (Laframboise) so better read up on her angle on consensus.

Like the $13,000 prize money for best essay on green myths. Wonder who supplied the money for that. Being Canadian maybe it’s the Harper Government?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/30/that-wobbly-foundation-peer-reviewed-research/
Peer review is not a guarantee of truth

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/14/the-silent-treatment/
Scientists should debate deniers

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/26/let-there-be-no-more-scientific-consensuses/
Science is about doubt, not certainty. Saying consensus is trying to disappear dissenters. Consensus is the opinion of a small group of people. Hundreds of imminent scientists dissent.

"Hundreds of imminent scientists dissent"

Those would be soon-to-graduate scientists...?

Perhaps we should concentrate more on the peer-reviewed sources.

http://skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=4855&r=7

John - when I click on both your thread links it says you do not have access to this page and if I click again I'm logged out.

Accidentally linked to http://skeptical... instead of http://www.skeptical... - which requires a different login session. Try the links again.