Melstew,
Sorry but citing an entry on Wikipedia as “evidence” is pretty laughable. Even if that article is 100% accurate in it’s representations (haven’t bothered to fact-check it myself) ..... given the nature of how Wikipedia articles are written/edited.... you may as well cite a Magic 8 Ball.
It can be usefull occasionaly on non-controversial topics, but that is about it. On anything even slightly controversial it’s about 50/50 whether you get fact or outright fabrication.
Furthermore, the fact that certain Academies and Associations which purport to represent scientists have adopted specific policy positions doesn’t say very much about consensus among scientists themselves. We would have to know alot more about the internal working of those institutions, thier memberships.... and the nitty gritty of how those policy statements are determined to be able to speak to that point.
I posted to Wikipedia link because it had many many citations on the conensus. But since you didn’t have time to look them up—here’s a copy of a letter from several national academies of science—including our own. I am sure you are familiar with the membership of the National Academy of Science. Their opinion on something does not make it so. Indeed, I strongly support your right to reach your own conclusions. But you are lying to yourself if you don’t except there is a consensus on this issue.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf