Refereeing the logical fallacy referees

"It's not that something is cited...it's the legitimacy of what the citation **itself** is saying."

eyy I agree

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Is this an appeal to authority?

It’s all empty bloviating if not connected to concrete examples.

—Is NASA a legitimate source to consult on planetary issues?
—Is any, or all, of the information presented in my citation inaccurate?
—If so, why?

The problem is that you like to vaguely impugn trustworthy sources with which you happen to disagree by using the “appeal to authority” fallacy, without attempting to refute the arguments with solid evidence.

That is its own kind of logical fallacy.

It’s not truly important to put a label on it, but if you insist:

It’s an ab initio failure to properly invoke the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Why? I’m not just vaguely citing NASA, I’m citing what NASA actually has explained.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

See explanation. If Richard Dawkins says something, it’s not true just because he said it. But: “What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.”

So, if you want to challenge the evidence NASA has brought to the table on this issue, the proper method is to introduce expert opinion that counters it.

It is relevant to consider the credentials of the authority in question, too. There’s substantially more reason to trust NASA than, for example, a YouTuber who “woke up” in 2014 and has a home-built science lab where he monitors “space weather” (as one ImgFlipper tried to do to me).

To address your example: There’s little reason to think Jesse Jackson is an expert on abortion laws or ethics. But the U.S. Supreme Court, for example? Different story. They’ve put out opinions that explain their constitutional reasoning and if you want to change the law on this, you cannot just dismiss those arguments out of hand.

It can also be thought of as an argument from ignorance. Or a massive shifting of the goalposts.

Which one?

I did go though NASA's citations and showed each one failed to support the claim that they make, so yes it is. You need an actual scientific poll of the opinions of scientists, or even better climatologists, in order to make a claim on consonance. If you found a NASA page that such a poll, that would be OK, but even you get NASA says so without the evidence to back it up, that is an appeal to authority.

Then your work here is already done