Saying that consensus has no place in science is going too far, but there is a fundamental difference between science based on reproducible experiments such as the physical sciences, and investigations of phenomena that are inherently irreproducible, such as data in psychology, economics, and climate science. This is why climate science is a combination of making observations of irreproducible event and then applying known physical science to draw conclusions. It's also why it's harder to come to these conclusions, so a certain reliance on authority tends to happen, and it's harder to convey the science to others not familiar with the subject matter. It doesn't help that economics has been totally hijacked by ideological agendas, discrediting the 'soft' sciences in general..
Tragically, both sides have abused the inherent uncertainties in climate science. Rising temperatures are reality on a planet-wide scale. The rate of rise is vastly greater than anything that has happened before. But there is increasing uncertainty when we start to look at specific factors that are causes, and more uncertainty about the ideal course of action. Both the certainties and the uncertainties have to be acknowledged.
By the way, I'm pretty sure "the backlash against the idea of consensus in science" started in the Middle Ages if not earlier. Remember Aristotle and Ptolemy were once the consensus.