"An appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed."
https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/#:~:text=An%20app....
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.
I'm saying global warming isn't true because scientists believe it to be true (this would be a fallacious argument).
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.
... according to linguistics researcher with a website. He sounds like as much a false authority on philosophy as anyone else.
9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. (See also 2.4 below.)
(Citing a doctor on the common cold is not a fallacy, but citing a doctor on global economics is)
And it doesn’t matter anyway - thankfully we use science now and not philosophy to determine truth.