Disagree. Displacing a well-grounded scientific consensus with a totally new explanation of observed phenomena requires, and IMO should require, more solid evidence than a claim with less evidence already in existence on the other side.
You can disagree all you like. My position is real science, yours is pseudoscience. The "scientific consensus" is meaningless, and is basically "bandwagoning". ONE well done experiment, properly verified, is sufficient to overthrow even the most beautiful theory. See Einstein, Feinman, Schwinger, and hundreds of other "hard" scientists.
All "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" does is give scientific-SOUNDING cover for "some" supposed scientists to ignore data they don't like.