Yes, there is consensus among scientists no matter what Skeptics claim.
About 93% or more of climatologists, who publish on the subject, agree that there is global warming and that humans are the cause of it. The American Meteorologist Society states:
Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively. – 1033
It is meteorologists (weathermen), whose level of expertise is limited on this subject. They, not climatologists, are the ones divided on the subject. Not having the expertise of a climatologist they fall among the opinions of the public in general. One thing that must be kept in mind is that a meteorologist is to a climatologist what a nurse is to a doctor. They may both be in the same general field but you don’t go to a nurse for surgery.
Science, like medicine, is a broad profession which has a wide variety of specialized positions. A brain surgeon is not likely to know what a heart surgeon does. Likewise, for science, a chemist might not know what a biologist does. In similar fashion, a meteorologist does not have the expertise of a climatologist.
Another point that the AMS brought out is that those who disbelieve in human-caused global warming base their belief on their political inclination and psychological reasons, not scientific knowledge:
Political ideology. Decision making about how to mount an effective societal response to climate change in the United States has been complicated by increasing polarization over the issue, which has occurred largely along political lines. In the late 1990s, similar proportions of liberals and conservatives saw global warming as real; by 2008 (Dunlap and McCright 2008)—and continuing to the present (Leiserowitz et al. 2012)—large differences had emerged such that liberals were more likely to see it as real, and conservatives had become increasingly skeptical. This growing polarization appears not to be caused by differences in scientific understanding—indeed, most Americans know very little about the science of global warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010)—but rather by differences in political ideology and deeper underlying values (Kahan et al. 2011). Many conservatives see the solutions proposed to mitigate global warming as being more harmful than global warming itself due to their effect on the economy (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to accept the dominant scientific view, as they see the proposed responses to global warming as strengthening activities they value—namely, protection of the environment and regulation of industrial harm. – Page 1030
Can we afford to have politics dominate science, particularly where it affects our well being?