[eivarv]

Does it actually matter?

An argument doesn't get any more or less fallacious based on who believes in it (the authority, in this case) – that's not an argument in itself.

It might be reasonable (a useful heuristic) to lean to the side of the expert, but the fact that an expert believes something doesn't in itself make the conclusion correct.

[teachrdan]

To the contrary, if someone is a correct authority, their statements have more weight on their domain of expertise. While all of us on HN are very clever and could think of a number of exceptions, I would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person.

[eivarv]

I too would trust a climate scientist as a legitimate authority on climate change over a religious leader or a PR person – but that's not what I'm discussing.

I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).

[entropicdrifter]

That would be a fallacious argument because it does not follow (non-sequitur) that the beliefs of scientists can cause shifts in reality, but nobody was arguing that.

They were arguing that it is logical to conclude that climate change is real because the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (the actual domain experts) is that it is real.

[eivarv]

That's not an argument that deals with whether climate change is real or not – but whether it's reasonable to believe it is, based on one's own lack of understanding in combination with making (reasonable) assumptions.

[entropicdrifter]

It is an argument that the consensus of the overwhelming majority of experts on any given subject with such a consensus is strong evidence for that position.