> Also, the normal distribution part is plainly unjustified. The scientific consensus
That's a dumb thing to say.
"Scientific consensus"? Really?
I suppose the first time a person chants "scientific consensus" everyone down to the last person is supposed to instantaneously change their minds and accept it, right?
The truth of the matter is that some people are slower to accept such truths than others. This doesn't mean that they're unwilling to accept them forever, but maybe it takes them a few weeks/months/years to arrive at the same conclusion as the rest. There's no reason to punish them or "tax" them for this.
Even if you could somehow determine that they never will accept it (rather than just being slow), those people are still necessary to keep the consensus honest. Without them, there won't be any criticism left, and then it just becomes a game for jackasses to try to get people to chant "scientific consensus" enough that everyone else must accept it instantly or be punished for not doing so.
What you're talking about isn't "consensus" at all, it's groupthink.
And it's pretty fucking sad that you've confused one for the other.