one should perhaps consider that those reports are likely reflections of the underlying reality.
The fact that "consensus" claim cannot be valid has already been shown in this thread. A small minority within any community can always hijack a political conversation to create a perception of universal "consensus" through intimidation of skeptics and control of resources (thereby starving any voices of disagreement). The tone in which the AGW hypothesis is being defended suggests that critical voices are being stifled and their research is being excluded from the funding considerations. Fear and intimidation will get you consensus on just about any issue. The fact that a political organization is, once again, joining the chorus of politically-tainted claims puts in question the integrity of research. It does not mean that the facts claimed by the research are wrong. But it does mean that the research is not scientifically validated.
While the tone of the AGW hypothesis discussion in the political space does suggest the issues of potential fear and intimidation and the like, there is little evidence that the same holds true in the worldwide accademic research community. Despite a lot of searching for evidence of that type of "cherry picking" of funding or lines of inquiry, there is very little of it that I am aware of - and the claims of this type of biases are fairly weak upon further investigation. While it MIGHT be true that the evil overlords are suppressing the true and honest scientists while the lackey sheep scientists are putting their fingers on the scales in all their research, thus resusting in a paupacy of anti-AGW evidence and an overwhelming pile of pro-AGW evidence, a more likely reason for such a divide is that the AGW hypothesis is a more accurate model of the behaviour of the climate. Sometimes the reason all the results turn out in one way is because reality is in fact that one way (and by "sometimes" I mean "usually").
Similar to the idea that bacterium Helicobacter pylori is the primary cause of stomach ulcers, the initial idea was strongly questioned, but since the idea held up to a number of further studies, it was "quickly" accepted as the best model, and within 10 years from the initial idea, antibiotic therapy became the recommended standard treatment for ulcers. Even against the ecconomic and political pressures of estabilished interests, the science settled pretty quickly. I do not see a whole lot of difference in the global climate science community.
What to do about public policy is clearly not settled, but the science questions have clearly moved beyond the "Is AGW the most accurate current model?" question and more towards the "What are the finer details of particular changes that can be made to the model and/or the imputs, and how do they effect the outcomes?"