First, they make an "appeal to authority", that is to say that their belief must be true because the mainstream scientific community says so. No, that is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy would be an appeal to inappropriate authority. We do not question the doctor's authority to speak about medical matters - similarly, it is entirely appropriate to cite scientists as authorities on science. If we were to cite inappropriate authorities on matters of medicine or science - such as a lawyer, pastor, or auto mechanic - then we would have committed a fallacy, but not until then.
This was, I feel compelled to point out, the second sentence in your novella, which does not seem to bode well for the quality of the remainder.
One could argue, for example, that most Constitutional scholars agree that Federal regulation of workplaces is supported by the Constitution. However, most of these scholars hold to the position of
stare decisis, so that the body of judicial opinion from John Marshall's day to our own is authoritative in interpretation of that document. This theory disregards what is the clear intent of the Framers of the Constitution, the doctrine of original intent. Many conservatives and most libertarians, including many FR posters, adhere to the doctrine of "original intent." Thus, they reject liberals or neo-conservatives who support Federal action based on
stare decisis. "Most constitutional scholars" are regarded by them as an appeal to an inappropriate authority.
The same would apply to the "mainstream scientific community," which supports a naturalist worldview.