This might help:
Anyone in science understands what you mean — that scientists are no less human than anyone else, i.e. they have opinions which vary just like anyone else. I doubt that there exists any two people agree who on everything. But that’s besides the point.
Plus, a scientist’s credibility does not transfer to a domain where they lack knowledge.
But for those less familiar with science it’s important to realize it’s not just a collection of arbitrary opinions. Not all opinions have the same weight. Scientific consensus does exist in sufficiently established domains and is like an averaging and stabilizing effect, much like the law of large numbers.
It does not mean that each data point is the same value or on the same side of the average. It does mean that taken collectively, the “community” achieves something more useful than the individual components: a consensus that tends to be more correct and more stable than without it.
The averaging effect also explains why new ideas face resistance. Some might decry it, with the benefit of hindsight, but don’t forget survivorship bias: we note the good ideas that took time to become accepted, but there are also plenty of bad ideas that got kept out of the body of knowledge by the same virtue. It also emphasizes that science does not and should not rely too strongly on any single data point or scientist. In other words this is a feature, not a bug.