It is, in fact, a very nice try. George, what sort of consulting service are you talking of here...computer modelling? Was the EPA itself the client or someone else who then submitted to them?
It is a politicized issue, that's acknowledged. But to say that doesn't help us as regards how we might view the value of hypotheses. Politicized subject or not, science procedes as 'tentative knowledge', yes? Best possible guesses given present data.
But george...you are being naughty again...I offered no 'immutable truths' nor anything remotely close. I paraphrased the presidents' science council. You followed with a series of claims so similar I thought you were quoting that council's report. Nor did I earlier talking with Setanta. In both cases I did say that the preponderance of the related science communities now share the opinion stated by that science council. That is the singular claim (other than noting the response of the three journals to Lomborg's book).
As to an 'appeal from authority' as logical fallacy, this does apply where opinion (of valid authorities) is divided and if I suggest that's not so, but I haven't. I've pointed to a preponderance of opinion, and an increasing preponderance over time, that conclusions such as the science council's are more probably true than their converse...no global warming going on and/or man's activities aren't contributory (or significantly so). This is partly what led me to describe Tres's post as 'undiscerning'. It's also what led me to argue with Setanta earlier, who claimed that the issue was politicized and that there were big dollars to be made by scientists studying the issue, thus providing a non-science motive to find a certain result (of course, that applies in either direction, and one need only go to the Cato site to verify this).
Thus, to clarify, if that is needed...the opinion I hold is that of the science council (you have to fork out $36 bucks for report, but here's a tidbit... http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2002/Global-Warming-EPAJun02.htm
). I don't hold this opinion because the EPA says so, but because I share the notion that the growing majority of opinion is more likely to be correct.
Your last paragraph, George, has the thought I consider most important...to act as if global warming is quite probable, that it might be damned difficult to reverse, and to therefore act to reduce burning fossil fuels quickly.