Every major national academy of sciences in the world, and virtually all of the major professional societies that deal with the relevant disciplines have issued statements saying that the evidence for climate change outside the realm of natural variability is overwhelming, that we have very strong reason to believe that human activity is responsible for a large part of this change, that harm is already occurring from these changes and that the harm will grow unless and until we stabilize and begin to reduce our emissions. This is not the view of a few isolated scientists, this is the overwhelming view of scientists who study this matter around the world. You will be able to produce on the witness stand a few who will say they don’t believe it, but they are cery much in the minority. You could also produce people on this witness stand, who will say, with PhD’s attached to their names, that they don’t believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. There are always skeptics, there are always heretics; that’s in the nature of science. But public policy, in my judgment, should be based on the mainstream view because to base it otherwise is to risk the well-being of the public against very long odds." A festival of fallacies.
Kind of - Appeal to authority, Appeal to belief, Appeal to Popularity - mixed together. 80% of dentists believe colgate ...
Appeal to adverse consequences
Red Herring (lung cancer)
Poisoning the well (lung cancer, heretics)
etc. etc.