You failed to mention that most methane gas emissions occur due to cattle.

I agree that focussing on CO2 is not addressing the problem as a whole, but the fact is, CO2 is also the easiest greenhouse gas to minimise in terms of the impact to implement measures to reduce it. Methane has the issue that it is produced mainly from cattle populations and food production is a very delicate commodity in the world that requires the least amount of meddling as possible (despite any deficiencies it may have).

Consensus of the general population (or more importantly in the cases you provided, those in charge) and consensus of the scientific community are very different things.

Climate science is unimaginably tricky but the idea that there is some big green conspiracy between 90% of climatologists is much harder to swallow.

When there's something that is hard for lay people to verify or get their heads around and where there isn't a very visible down side to, there's bound to be those that don't believe its an issue. It's up to the scientific community and media to ensure that the research is verifiable and that it is reported properly to ensure that the public are getting the best information possible. Unfortunately, both sides, the scientific community and the media have done some a god awful job of informing the public and we're left with so much confusing information, and from some parts disinformation, that its no wonder that we can't make out mind up.

Oh yeah and just to add to your comment about consensus:

The earth was flat - but scientists and exploration proved that wrong
The earth was the centre of the universe - but scientists proved that wrong
The earth was created by $DEITY - is not in the least bit an area of scientific enquiry

and let me add...

That the earth is not undergoing human affecting climate change - but scientists have proved that wrong.

The media have become as much a problem for serious debate as an enabler for that debate to happen.

They have added credence to otherwise unsubstantiated claims due to the claim of "balanced" approach to the issue which has resulted in a 'us vs. them' philosophy in so many issues in which proper scientific, evidential analysis is brought along side speculative, unsubstantiated and biased arguments and presented as equivalent when that is not the case.

This has happened in so many facets of current debates, and is not necessarily restricted to the lowest-common denominator type media outlets that truly there appears to be no hope that proper researched, independently verified fact can be brought to the public without a major injection of cash and a carefully planned advertising campaign accompanying it. Because where there is opposition, with all their clear bias, certain parts of the media will ignore it to give them a microphone, whether willing or not to voice their opposition no matter the weight and validity of their arguments.

Science has always battled the incumbents. In the past it was the religious leaders where the questions of how were being answered quicker than the clergy could justify. Today, science is besieged by not only the religious, but by those with the political and monetary will to preserve a status quo that may well spell hardship on future generations.

Climate change is one such area of science where those who are doing the actual work can have their findings drowned out by anyone who has a microphone and a name.