A primary problem with using so-called "scientific consensus" to form public policy, is that while (perhaps) the scientists that produced the research might (emphasis on might) understand that their research is falsifiable -- the rest of the body politic does not, and proceeds on the assumption that it is "settled science".
They get to reap the wind of publicly funded largesse, ... and we get to reap the whirlwind.
Both Engineers and Scientists must satisfy the Scientific Method; if your proposed hypothesis is refuted (ya, even just once, a little bit!), it must be abandoned.
Unfortunately, there appear to be a large body of both Scientists and Engineers that do not feel their research/results should be subjected to analysis and discarded when refuted -- and this insanity (ie. rejecting the Scientific Method =~= Insanity) is supported, stridently, by the political elites and public at large.
They get to reap the wind of publicly funded largesse, ... and we get to reap the whirlwind.
Both Engineers and Scientists must satisfy the Scientific Method; if your proposed hypothesis is refuted (ya, even just once, a little bit!), it must be abandoned.
Unfortunately, there appear to be a large body of both Scientists and Engineers that do not feel their research/results should be subjected to analysis and discarded when refuted -- and this insanity (ie. rejecting the Scientific Method =~= Insanity) is supported, stridently, by the political elites and public at large.