We seem to throw around "consensus" more and more as time goes on with skeptics. However it also seems that a claim of "consensus" is the one claim that does not require a reference. Should a claim of consensus require a reference to meta research which shows that there actually is a majority opinion of the appropriate scientific community?
A claim of consensus is a claim like any other. There should be evidence that the claim is true and a reference to that evidence included in the answer using the claim.
If anything, I swing the other way than your opinion that claims of consensus require more evidence... but I may be misunderstanding exactly what you are aiming for.
Absolutely, why not. However, we should be careful as to what references we allow. Usually (exceptions prove the rule) there is no “paper” proclaiming a consensus on a certain point.
I think we should accept as consensus any fact that has been repeated in a University-level text book, or if it’s visibly taken for granted in scientific publications. Otherwise a consensus may be very hard to prove in many cases.
I think this question is fundamentally flawed since consensus, by definition (even when existant in the field), ignores anomaly and breakthrough directions.
Many arguing against consensus should return to their R&D and establish the data for or against the perceived consensus. Mainstream thinking can change suddenly with a single new ray of truth.