I think either you’re misunderstanding the paper, or I’m misunderstanding you. (Or of course both.) The point isn’t that scientists should be looking at consensus instead of actually doing science; of course they shouldn’t. It’s that for someone who isn’t an expert in the field and isn’t in a position to do their own research, the opinions of those who are experts and have done their own research are very useful information. (In cases—such as this one—where there is near unanimity among the experts, I think the only reasonable options are “accept expert consensus, if only tentatively” and “become expert at a level comparable to theirs and form your own opinion”. Of course no one is obliged to be reasonable.)
I think either you’re misunderstanding the paper, or I’m misunderstanding you. (Or of course both.) The point isn’t that scientists should be looking at consensus instead of actually doing science; of course they shouldn’t. It’s that for someone who isn’t an expert in the field and isn’t in a position to do their own research, the opinions of those who are experts and have done their own research are very useful information. (In cases—such as this one—where there is near unanimity among the experts, I think the only reasonable options are “accept expert consensus, if only tentatively” and “become expert at a level comparable to theirs and form your own opinion”. Of course no one is obliged to be reasonable.)