To be more specific, then the consensus may be wrong. The bar to demonstrate that something is wrong and be taken seriously is meant to be higher than simply claiming one can produce evidence to the contrary.
When such evidence is discovered, the idea is that one would present that evidence to peers, who would attempt to replicate the findings, and support them if they are able to do so, or otherwise publish their counter-findings in response. This is obviously more complicated in practice because we're dealing with humans and not ideals (and thus we have things like the replication crisis), but that is the theory of how we advance the body of knowledge that we derive from scientific theses and experiments.
We do not advance it by claiming that evidence has been found and then leaving it at that, in a vacuum. So it's not exactly that science "works on consensus", in the sense that just a majority doesn't prove anything, but -- convincing, using evidence, the majority of the scientific community in your field, is certainly part of the process.
No, no, consensus is the only reason we have science, or language, or much of anything humans find interesting. Let me explain:
Science is a thing humans do. Without humans around, I don't see ants doing science anytime soon :) When humans share the stuff they do and reach agreement, that is called consensus.
In other words, any word you use, it is because humans wanted to communicate and reach consensus, so they invented a word for it.
So you have it backwards, it's humans -> consensus -> science, not science -> consensus -> humans.
I don't think each of these are as solid as the other. Climate science is certainly less testable than say particle physics. Not that we shouldn't work together as humans to model, understand and keep our (only) planet stable as best we can.. but "scientific consensus" is less meaningful in this field.. used as a political word to motivate people at the expense of more nuanced understanding.
But like vaccines, it's probably better to act now before we understand it all.. (on the day before we go extinct).
No it doesn't. I can't believe people are even claiming this. Science has NOTHING to do with consensus. If evidence is produced that goes against a consensus then the consensus is wrong. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Consensus is a problem of humans that disrupts the scientific process.