In any case, it doesn't matter. Science doesn't work that way. Science is about finding the truth by the scientific method, not by holding elections or arranging polls. If you know anything at all about the history of science, you know that often one man figured out the truth about something, and the consensus was against him. If they'd held a vote about evolution, or heliocentric astronomy, we'd all still have to believe some pretty inaccurate things.
Here's the rest of what Michael Crichton said:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
Quibcag: You guessed it. That's Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない).