Yes, it is an appeal to authority. When one want a verdict on the mechanisms of Gravity, should we not appeal to physicists? When we are interested in Cancer, should not we look to oncologists? So, when we need to find out about our climate, it is to climatologists that we look.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus: [2]

  X holds that A is true.
  X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
  The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
  Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

> should we not appeal to physicists?

No, we should not because there is no reason to believe that laws of physics are in any way dependent on physicists. Science is based on theories producing verifiable predictions, not "votes" cast through articles.

Yes, if you need to get something done, you hire people with relevant knowledge, skills and experience. But scientific theories should be completely inter-subjective and work the same for everyone.

So, you are suggesting that if hundreds of physicists do various experiments on some property of gravity, say, the speed of propagation of gravity, starting with Urbain Le Verrier in 1859, and they publish these experiments, and their results, in peer reviewed journals, and over 150 years of extremely competent physicists, each trying to make their reputation by trying to disprove the commonly held theory (that it occurs at the speed of light), none of them come up with any answer other than, gravity propagates at the speed of light - that you don't believe we should, as a society, and individuals, subscribe to this notion, because all of these experts have found it to be true and told us it is the case?

After all, there is no way for you or I to determine the speed of propagation of gravity, so what choice do we have other than to rely on other's authority?

And yet appeal to authority remains a fallacy, and it is possible for social proof to fail. Some people would like to sweep this paradox under the rug, but it's not that simple. Not so long ago, a similar survey of published authorities as the OP's would have yielded results we today would consider preposterous.

History and philosophy have much to teach us here, for example about the perils of overconfidence.

climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.

> climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory.

No, not at this point. It has always been established and believed. We live on a planet with a dynamic climate that changes and shifts month to month, year to year, decade to decade, millennium to millennium, and has cycles that extend even beyond that.

> We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening.

We have no idea what's causing it, why it's happening (or why it happened), not even close to it. It's that complex.

> Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.

No, they do not. They point to climate change. Some places are getting warmer. Some cooler. Some are static. Again, complex.

Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic, I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?

> Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic

Huh? I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority agree with me.

> I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?

The people spouting about global warming are the same clowns who were wringing their hands about global cooling in the 70s. The moment I hear warming or cooling the only word that bubbles up in my mind is idiot.

It's global climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So, you are suggesting the following people are, "idiots" - or, at least, the only word that bubbles up into your mind is idiot?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+global+war...

I read through the article on "Global Cooling" (from the 1970s) - it was missing two things - one, a clear causative description - it was predominantly "observational", and two, a lack of scientific consensus.

I don't think you understand how science works.