Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
(but you knew that)
That is only true, if there were any such a thing as "true" or "not true," (a dichotomy that is only representative of a broad sheaf of possibilities) in the minds of those who do not understand that there is not any objective "real world"; but that "reality" only exists in the perceptions of the observer, and is totally subjective. This is why we can dismiss any and all of your so called "evidence" by consensus.
(SS) The faculty & staff, East Anglia Climatic Research Unit