Our colloquial understanding to the term "consensus" does not apply in science. I gather that you understand this so I write below for the benefit of those who don't (yet) understand the principles of science.
"Scientific consensus" means that independent scientific observations (measurements) made by scientific organisations around the world (different geographical points of observation) have arrived at similar conclusions based upon the best analysis of data. (Data analysis is a relatively standardised assessment of whether the data meets scientific criteria for significance and validity)
this is an important scientific principle that either confirms or casts doubt on scientific theory (a hypothesis that has been subjected to independent critical analysis and research to confirm or cast doubt on the hypothesis and the methods used to develop the hypothetical principles).
Scepticism forms the basis of determining conclusions. Doubt is essential as it is in judicial findings. Its the best principle for determining truth.
Those scientists you refer to are not ignored or rejected but have their data, methods and conclusions carefully scrutinised by scientific peers (trained reviewers of scientific papers) and analysed to determine if the observations etc are valid. These are the most important papers to be considered because they might shed new light on former observations and conclusions which may have the authority to cast doubt on established scientific theory.
Unfortunately there are dubious science practitioners who compromise standards to make a non-scientific point. These too need to be identified.
