Why do man-made Global Warming alarmists frequently use the fallacious appeal to authority?
Putting aside the fact that Climategate has exposed "peer review" (especially "peer reviewed" climate "science") as a fraud, this argument is a classic logical fallacy. Just because something is published in a "peer-reviewed" journal does not mean that it is true. Furthermore, just because something is not published in a "peer-reviewed" journal does not mean that it is false. Furthermore, whether or not there is a "consensus" among scientists that the man-made Global Warming theory is true (this seems dubious at best) is irrelevant, as the "consensus" of scientists may be wrong (and has usually been in the past; the "consensus" of climate scientists in the 1970s was that we were headed toward an Ice Age; back then, Obama's science adviser Holdren believed this; see: http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/th... ).
Why does it always seem that the man-made Global Warming alarmists seem to rely upon logical fallacies such as the appeal to authority?