I see you taking a whole lot of broad discussion in this topic and attributing it to a very specific subject when the people you are quoting are not. This is generally just a poor debate tactic to remove credibility from your opposition. I, nor Salem, has gone to completely deny global warming, yet you seem to believe we're very adamant about it. The point that I am making... and the point that Salem was making, as I understood it... is that general scientific theory such as greenhouse gases and the effect they have on the environment is always at risk of being taken out of context and even altered in what they predict by anyone who has a stake in making it a more interesting subject such as a media source. Now, since in our society, mainstream attention offers such a great benefit, science has the burden of backing up what the public is told for their own gain. Once the media's speculation is backed by science, they can not take it a step further to spice up the topic, again. This process is played out perpetually until the theory is refuted or another subject has more potential value.
As you said, nearly all scientist will agree on the existence of global warming, just as nearly all economists will agree that there is, in fact, an economic crisis. There is still a much heated debate, however, as to what exactly is causing either of them, how to fix them, how quickly they will affect us and to what magnitude.
... Ugg, I really haven't wrapped my point up, but I really have to be off somewhere. Once I get some computer access, again, I'll wrap all of this up.