So what? Science has never operated by consensus or vote. If you care about science, act like it, by applying the correct standards; claim, argument, evidence. CAN you describe the evidence, or is an appeal to authority your only 'contribution' to the debate?
There is also the dunning-Kruger effect to consider; "Climate science" is the new guy on the block, a made-up discipline comprised of meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics, marine biology and geology. Yet the majority of the scientists in those real fields don't buy AGW. The dunning-Kruger effect tells the rational people not to trust the climate 'scientists,' especially when the bulk of them start by _assuming_ it's true, then calculating the effects.