The problem is what is sold as the "consensus" is not what is included in the consensus.
The consensus is simply that most Scientist agree that yes it has warmed since 1880,
and that Human activity likely played a roll. moving much beyond that and the consensus falls apart.
Look at NASA's Scientific consensus page.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
This sounds convincing, but what does it really say?
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
I agree with this statement, but based on the math,
If we use AR5's imbalance number of 3.71 Wm2 for 2XCO2, then the CO2 warming is,
5.35 ln(408/280)=2.208 Wm-2 or forcing warming of .66 C.
So yes, one could even say a majority of the observed warming is from Human activity,
but that still says nothing about the IPCC's predicted amplified feedbacks.
Without the amplified feedbacks, the IPCC's predictions are inconsequential.
My point is that the consensus statement only support the portion of the warming that is based on CO2's direct greenhouse forcing.
The people trying to show a consensus never asked the real question,
of how much they thought the 2XCO2 ECS would be.