However, that does not make the consensus correct.
The world is flat.
You cannot travel faster than sound.
The atom is the smallest particle of matter.
You cannot travel faster than light.
Consensus only stands until demonstrated to be wrong. Being widely accepted does not make an idea correct. In science, verified by repeatable experiment, a hypothesis advances to theory.
Where, exactly has that occurred here?
In a planetary history alleged to be over 4 billion years we are to take a mere couple of hundred years of poorly controlled data and accept that for once, in the entire history of the planet, human activity is driving a change in climate which has occurred without that activity to drive it in the past.
I am far from convinced sufficiently to don sackcloth and ashes individually, or as part of a culture and go wandering in self-flagellation while other cultures are given a free pass to do more of what we are supposed to have done that is supposedly wrecking the planet.
I am even less inclined to see those cultures and the administering minions benefit economically from the penalties I and others of my culture allegedly should pay for our claimed 'sins', while those others are issued indulgences of the highest order.
There is always a chance that consensus is wrong. There is a greater chance consensus is wrong, in situations like this, where the data is developing and speculation and models are relied upon. So what? That doesn’t mean that all consensus is wrong, or that the views of the majority of scientists do not have value. It just means it makes sense to leave room for all POVs—which was my original point. Thanks for restating that point with several gripping examples. Notwithstanding the hyberbole of the remainder of your post—I agree. We should not lose sight of the balance needed to respond to the potential problem. I do not think the US should suffer a penalty or is in anyway remotely blameworthy. I do think that, if CO2 reductions are made (and I agree with the current consensus that they should be), the countries with the highest per capita emissions should make the most cuts.