Check the edit nitwit. Authority is not needed to understand the truth of AGW. Only a modicum of intelligence and some objectivity. Do you need authority to tell you which way is up?
but when the title is 6% of scientists vote republican you have an absolutely perfect example of the fallacy. when you want to appeal to expertise... the expert should be giving their expert testimony about scientifically repeatable experiments or observations that and that a lay person can not understand. so again appeal to scientists to is not an appeal to expertise... because there are no scientifically repeatable facts showing man made co2 is causing warming. There were computer models which have failed... the failure is that fact that co2 is up 14% the last 17 years... yet we have had none of the warming over land the models forecast.
Yes, I agree it is false. Let me also add that most who work for the national laboratories are not government employees either. For example, the scientific staff at Los Alamos, for example, used to all be University of California employees. Nowadays they are employees of a consortium of the University of California; Bechtel National, Inc.; The Babcock & Wilcox Company; and URS Corporation. Most of the other National laboratories are also operated by consortiums of for profit companies and various universities, whereas previously the were operated by either a private company or a university. Western Electric, for example, operated Sandia, The University of Chicago operated Argonne, etc. So the employees of these laboratories worked for universities or private companies. At some point, I think it was during the G.W. Bush administration, management of the laboratories was shifted from a single prime contractor to consortiums, for better or worse. But the scientific staffs at these laboratories have never been government employees.
Scat is clearly not a "moron" . Perhaps he's not very broadly educated. (By his own admission, he was able to CLEP out of courses outside his major.) He does have viewpoints that often seem illogical, and rather nutty, to me personally, but that does not make him a moron. Perhaps you should work on expanding your vocabulary beyond "moron", "liar", "nitwit" and "douchebag".
1. the title of the thread is the fallacy. 2. appealing to (fraudulent calculated) a consensus is not a proper appeal to expertise.
It's not a fallacy, it's a statement of fact. 6%. Unless you have different data... ? But you don't get to work backward from your ideology re taxation, as expressed in the AGW debate, and say, "therefore it is not 6%."
They were humiliated by the Moon scientists who can produce a baby within 10 seconds after sex, when they were asked by the latter, "if it takes 9 months for the baby to arrive, pray tell why the fellow was in such a hurry towards the end?"