I said near-unanimous, you need to read carefully. It’s enough of a consensus to go ahead and accept as a non-expert.
Secondly science proves facts all the time, just not mathematically. You will hear that there is no proof in science, and that’s accurate in the strict philosophical use of the word proof, but in the colloquial sense yes, science does prove things. It’s the only thing that proves things in that sense. So it’s time to retire that point as well.
Thirdly I still have my handy dandy knock-down argument for that point of yours, I never get tired of using it. Now, before you skip reading it again, see if you can spot which word I've changed this time: So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read
Where does morality come from? again.
The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.
The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.
Fourthly, as explained above, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the consensus of scientists on matters of science, but your faith has no such reasonable foundation.