Having said that, there are some additional reasons why this happens with AGW. For example, science has pretty much come to a consensus a decade ago, so it's somewhat fair to assume that many of the people who hold out either suffer from cognitive dissonance (e.g. they drive an inefficient car and don't want to be feel bad for it, so they don't believe in AGW), or have monetary motives (e.g. they sell oil). Not all of them, obviously, but as a generalization, it doesn't seem overly unfair.
I don't own a gun. My driving is limited enough that I only need to fill my gas tank three times a year. While I am fiscally conservative, I'm nowhere near the right-wing. Socially, I'm far left on the political spectrum. I'm 40 y/o. I work as a glorified code-monkey (with a MS), and I've been to half a dozen countries in Asia, most of Western Europe, the USA, and Canada.
IOW, I'm neither gun-toting, a cognitive dissonance suffering SUV-driver, right-wing-nut, young/naive, un-educated, myopic, nor selling oil.
What scares me most about the AGW debate is the religious fervor, with which its proponents attack their opponents. You say that "science" has come to a consensus a decade ago, but that glosses over mountains of politicking. What it boils down to for me is this: when there is a conflict between policies aimed at reversing AGW and policies aimed at eliminating e.g. malaria and food shortages; which policy should be prioritized? The answer, at least for me, is that malaria is far more deserving of mind-share than AGW.