The results of one study could mean anything and I agree it should not be emphasized to the public. However, the term "scientific consensus" makes truth sound

The results of one study could mean anything and I agree it should not be emphasized to the public. However, the term "scientific consensus" makes truth sound like a popularity contest and worse - a popularity contest by people who claim they are better than you. This appeals to the authoritarian nature of people, not their critical nature. It is basically telling the public they aren't allowed to think. It's not only a jerk thing to do, it discourages scientific literacy outside of scientific professionals. Another problem with the "scientific consensus" is due to its political influence and nebulous definition it is rife for abuse. If there is no rigorous methodology to determine it in an accurate and replicable manner, then it can be whatever someone says it is. I agree that we need some sort of way of determining scientific validity by taking into account many tests, theory and perpectives, but "Scientific consensus" (whatever that is) is not it.