lolwot
Imo, you are correct that the original wsj article skeptical of cAGW did invoke a strategy to appeal to authority by stating that many engineers and “scientists” doubt that the actions proposed by the IPCC are warranted.
Imo, you have ignored the central reason for the implementation of that strategy.
Those who initiated and support the notion that immediate and drastic actions must be implemented to prevent great harm originally employed an argument that there is a consensus of learned experts who best understand this complex issue and agree it is a problem and agree on a course of action. It was frequently said that not to agree to support their conclusions demonstrated that a person was some way “mentally challenged.”
It was an effective strategy in that most people are not willing or able to research the details that make up the supporting data and rely upon “experts” to summarize the issue and suitability of proposed actions.
Fortunately, Imo the strategy ultimately is failing due to very practical reasons.