Nonetheless, there is a difference between science (purely based on facts) and scientific consensus (often times lobbied by parties with interests (companies, etc) to favor a certain outcome).
Whenever you see "scientific consensus" you know right away it's crap, because there is no consensus in science.
I’ve read two definitions of “scientific consensus” and one of them matches the one youse guys are sharing. The politicized/monetized version of an appeal to authority. It’s an “it’s right because the right people agree with me” situation and an acrimonious divorce from reason.
I’ve also read of a definition of “scientific consensus” wherein a study would be performed by multiple research groups and yield roughly identical results. It’s an “it might not be right, but we have yet to find out how it’s wrong and we’ve been trying” situation. If the answer isn’t uncertain, unnerving, and generally disappointing, it’s probably good scientific practices.
At least that’s my understanding and my sky-high Dunning Krueger strongly suggests I’m mistaken and my list being only two definitions seems to miss lots of nuance.