As an aside, I have to address the fact that I have been visiting this site (on and off) for a few years, and I've seen a lot of your posts in that time. You may be glad to hear that your posts stand out more than anyone else's. I think every single post of yours (there may be an odd exception, but I can't remember any) is you slagging people off, picking holes, making nasty comments and generally having digs. I'm reading an interesting thread, and it's no surprise when in the middle of it all, there's a little post from SWP's Back, picking up on some minor error or point you disagree with, made in a condescending way. It's like it's your raison d'etre to put people down and tell them how they are wrong about everything. Do you literally come on the internet to find people to argue with? If you've had a bad day, do you think, "Right, let's find someone who I think is wrong about something and make damn sure they know it!"? In all that time, I've never seen you post anything constructive, positive, informative, clever, nice or useful; it's always snide comments. I can only assume it's some kind of self-esteem thing. Like you'll feel a bit better about yourself if you can convince yourself that you are somehow better than some random strangers. But you really have become a parody of yourself now.
As for scientific consensus - well, you're at it again right there. It's just pedantic to ask for a scientific consensus on something on an internet forum. What do you want me to do - write an essay and provide 100 references? You asked for it because you know full well that nobody on a forum is going to have the time or inclination to demonstrate a scientific consensus for anything.
I can share some articles (for example:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/ ) but how many do I need to share in order to demonstrate a consensus that you will accept? It's a pointless exercise.