Analyzing the Appeal to Consensus

Certainly. Thanks for asking. Here's a publication list. There are links to most of them. (If not available full-text, your public library can probably get them for you on their databases). 

http://harpine.blogspot.com/p/william-d-harpines-publications.html 

It sounds like you're getting tripped up with the application of the word "consensus". For one, it's not a popularity contest. It simply means "the sheer weight of the compelling evidence has narrowed the avenues of research to areas that continue to make sense".

Similar to the use of the word  "theory" it means something very different to the scientific community than it does to the general populace. ( Argumentum ad populum).

Perhaps you might enjoy this different approach? Rather than trying to discredit all scientific consensus as fallacious reasoning, let's compare your analysis to Real Clear Science's handy guide for denying scientific consensus in the first place. 

Tip #1: Claim a conspiracy. Feel like the whole world is against you? Well that's because it is! Scientists, politicians, journalists: they're all in collusion! Take climate change, for example. It's obvious why all those scientists "agree." They've been paid off by Big Solar and Big Wind, and are probably throwing lavish parties, complete with dancers that jump out of giant cakes shaped like beakers.

Tip #2: Use fake experts. The other side has their experts, so you need to get some, too. Finding somebody with respected credentials will be difficult, so to make up for it, just dress whoever you select in a white lab coat. If you can recruit a celebrity, do it! The public already trusts them. (Note: The more attractive the celebrity, the greater is his or her credibility.) To the anti-vaxxers out there, I recommend Jenny McCarthy.

Tip #3: Cherry-pick scientific data. Every once in a while, a scientific study will be published that supports your claims. When this happens, latch on and don't let go (despite it's obvious errors)! After all, the key to convincing others is simply to repeat your message more often than your opponents repeat theirs. If you're opposed to genetic modification, allow me to recommend a 2012 study by Gilles-Éric Séralini which found that genetically modified corn causes cancer in lab rats. Never mind that it's been universally denounced and recently retracted. The public doesn't need to know that.

Tip #4: Create unrealistic expectations of the evidence. Science is inherently uncertain; even scientists admit that! What can they ever really prove? Nothing! Climate change deniers, take Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee's advice and "point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer."

Tip #5: Employ logical fallacies. Straw men, red herrings, false analogies: all of these are your friends. Misrepresent the opposition! Change the subject! And here's a foolproof false analogy for evolution deniers: "As the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker." Deep, isn't it?

1. An appeal to consensus could be nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

Then this is just lying; misinformation. There's no fallacy involved because we are dealing with factual claims.

It could also be an example of cherry-picking; some power broker just hand-picked a group of scientists to query.

Cherry picking. This has less to do with appealing to consensus and more to do with presenting a misleading view of what this 'consensus' looks like. If it's cherry-picked, it's not consensus.

The "scientists" who were queried aren't real scientists. (What kind of fallacy would that be?)

Would fall under lying, but would also be an example of appeal to false authority.

The scientists were paid to take  part in a survey.

This may actually be a fallacy on your part, since you dismiss the results based on the fact the scientists were paid. This does not actually mean the results were false; it means they are suspect. Careful not to fall into ad hominem (circumstantial).

It could be an example of ambiguity;  exactly  what does a person mean by "consensus"? Are they talking about a poll?

Ambiguity fallacy. 

Alternatively, it could be a matter of what inferences were made based on consensus. We could have a case of fact-to-fiction fallacy, a new one Dr Bo added for the COVID-19 debate. You quote science (facts, or consensus opinion) then infer something from that science which isn't supported by it. Then, when people object, claim they are "anti-science".