I don't know the scientific community was pretty adamant in its consensus against the Bush administration on this.
More the case that the bulk of the media was adamant in its consensus against the Bush administration and made sure to put only the scientists on the air who would say things against the Bush administration. To appear to be fair they'd occasionally put republican pundits on to counter the scientists. But they wouldn't usually put a scientist on with the view that climate change might not fully be explained as man made. And if they did they'd simply accuse him of being a republican shill and make all sorts of specious arguments to discredit him in the eyes of their viewers.
This guy sounds like a holdover from individuals hired by the previous administration to refute the rest of the scientific community.
If you FTFL (followed the fucking link) you'd see this: Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present
So here's a guy with a masters in physics and a PhD in economics who's been working for the EPA since the Nixon administration. But, oh, wait. He isn't an "environmental scientist" so his opinion doesn't matter. That's the best trick yet that's been used to discredit everyone who doesn't toe the party line that climate change is fully or mostly caused by man and that we must take drastic action to attempt to reverse it.
The rub I have with that trick is that environmental science seems to have as one of its axioms the presupposition that climate change is man made. That is to say that environmental scientists presume that statement to be true without having to back it up. Then they focus on researching ways man can change his behavior to have less of an impact on the environment.
Saying that environmental scientists have formed a consensus that man is causing global warming is like saying that cattle ranchers have formed a consensus that beef is the best meat.
The other thing I hate about this whole debate is that ultimately it is not one of science at all. The question is not "does man have an effect on the earth" because the answer to that question is undoubtedly a resounding YES. The act of you simply breathing has an effect on the earth. So we can get more specific and ask questions like "is man directly responsible for rising global temperatures?" and "are we going to cause the planet to become uninhabitable?" and "if so, how long do we have?".
The answers to those questions are a lot murkier and there has been a fair amount of bogus research out there. One great example is the whole "hockey stick graph." Intended to show how much more temperatures have risen in the 20th century when compared with prior centuries it instead showed the result the "scientist" expected. It showed that result because he explicitly coded the program and input data to it based on the assumptions he had been making. The resulting visualization was, of course, exactly what he expected to see. Garbage in, garbage out.
So what we have is a feedback loop where the environmental scientists are all doing research from their assumptions and from past assumptions. There is very little truly "hard data" available in this field. That is simply due to the nature of it. We did not record temperatures until relatively recently. We did not look at what the polar ice caps were doing until relatively recently. For all we know, the temperatures might have risen and fallen on cycles for years. For all we know, the polar ice caps have been growing and shrinking for years.
In lieu of hard data, environmental science tries to come up with methods of interpolating this data based on other observations that were recorded or based on archeology that we can do now. But we can't test what the temperature of something was so we have to try to count the size of tree rings and then try to write a formula that will relate tree rings to what the temperature probably was. But even then there's a shit ton of other variables going in to how much a tree grew during a given season. And worst of all, the formulas they use to make these calculations are written by the people who want to see the result that temperatures were lower and more steady in past centuries.
So all of the interpolated data they use is based on their own assumptions of how it should be interpolated. The assumptions of people with a vested interest in claiming that man-made global warming is occurring.
Thus the answers to the question of how much of an effect are we having on the environment is very very difficult to answer and the only "consensus" is from a field of scientists whose field it is to form a consensus and work from there. Therefore, there is effectively no real consensus at all, just the assumptions made by these people. And as to the questions of how long do we have you're dealing with something where you have to predict the future and try to come up with ways to model it hoping that your assumptions are not wrong. And again you have a situation where there is consensus by design because the environmental scientists aren't questioning the assumptions of each other.
And as we can clearly see here, when any scientist dares question the assumptions he is attacked for it, particularly when it is in the realm of politics. And the reason for this is that the politicians don't care what the true answers are. They don't want real research with all of its murkiness and footnotes. They want a group of people who will unequivocally say that man is causing severe climate change and that we must stop it at all costs. And they want it precisely because of the "at all costs" part because that gives the politicians more power. Fear is a great tool of the politician.