Well supported camps at canonizer.com rigorously measure consensus (both scientific, the general population, and any other way) definitively, comparatively, and in real time. In the past there have been few if any attempts to measure scientific consensus because of many obvious problems in attempting such.
There are many examples of these problems in various methods attempting to show consensus in various ways in controversial topics in wikipedia such as The Oregon Petition, the list of critics and proponents in the article on Qualia and the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
Jw2035 pointed out 5 problems with systems that attempt to measure consensus, and there are other problems such as:
Our responses to each of these issues are presented here:
canonizer.com is completely open, fair and unbiased. Anyone can work to develop and recruit people to any POV they feel is important. The absence of a particular POV is only an indication that there are less people as motivated to do the work required to develop support for such a POV.
Canonizer.com resolves this problem in crowd sourcing ways in the spirit of Wikipedia. Everything is very public and social. Experts or anyone can get as involved as they desire at any time. Anyone attempting to pose as some other expert would be instantly exposed as a fraud. Even new not well known or non experts, can be verified in crowd sourcing ways by people in competing camps such as you can see in this forum discussion where the at one time was not well known JohnDe1941 is being grilled to verify he is a legitimate person: http://canonizer.com/thread.asp/23/13/4
Without a well developed reputation in the system, the canonizers can simply ignore you. If anyone suspects fraud of any kind, such can be reported to the operators of the system and all such is fully investigate and remedied.
Canonizer.com flips the censoring process on its head. Anyone can contribute any theory they believe to be important. Prioritizing and filtering is done on the reading side - since people can select any canonization algorithm they desire on the side bar to order and filter the camps. Yes, if only one person supports a camp, there is a good chance it is a mere 'crackpot' idea. But that one person first in a camp could also be the next Einstein. If there are large numbers of experts in a camp, you can be sure the camp has gone through an extreme amount of work vetting, rewriting, negotiation, and so on, to get it in a good enough state to win the support of lots of experts. This process can rigorously go quantitatively far beyond any mere 'peer review' process used in any scientific journal. The various canonization algorithms also lets people do things like compare the 'scientific consensus' to the consensus of the general population, Christian population, and so on.