Science is utterly unconcerned about consensus. That's the purview of politics. Science is concerned with evidence and reproducible results.
That is how consensus is formed, Extrafire. Scientists perform experiments, publish their results. Other scientists examine the results critically, try to reproduce them. The results then support one theory or another and a consensus is formed.
Thus at one time there were two competing theories of Cosmology, Big Bang theory and Steady State theory. Over decades, experiments performed gave results that could be explained by one and not by the other (the red shift, background radiation etc.). So consensus formed around the Big bang theory.
Evidence and scientific consensus is usually the same thing. It is very rare indeed, that evidence points to one theory, but scientific consensus supports another theory, just doesn’t happen.
He was opposed by every scientist in the world. It wasn't until 1950, 20 years after his death that the theory was confirmed.
Sure, that is because evidence was not available. Until the evidence becomes available, consensus is not going to change. Thus at one time consensus was that earth was flat, or that sun goes around the earth.
So consensus can be sometimes wrong. However, consensus is usually based upon the best available evidence. Even if consensus is wrong, it is based upon the best possible evidence available. That is the scientific method. So I will go with consensus, even if at a later date consensus may be proved wrong.