Well, yeah.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but what BOTH sides have is a "Consensus of Scientists". In other words, and in your example, "A bunch of guys with Meteorological backgrounds agreed that Man-Made Global Warming is crap".
If it was "Scientific", then it would be "A bunch of guys (doesn't matter who, scientific experiments are completely repeatable) formed a hypothesis (GW is crap, the Earth is getting colder not warmer), repeatedly tested the hypothesis (they looked at thermometers and wrote down the temps for a couple of decades), and the end discovery (Earth is cooling, not warming) supported their original theory."
IMHO, words mean things. "Science" is one thing. "Consensus of Scientists" is another.
"Scientific Consensus" is gobbledgook term that tries to lend credibility to a con by silencing critics. It's no different than NBCCBSABCCNN commentators shouting "Everyone knows that Obama will win in 2012".
The meterologists say its a bunch of crap by a margin of two to one. This is now documented. I have yet to see the document that verifies scientists believe in the crap 9 to 1 as claimed.