Right. The appeal to Mr Science fallacy, aka the appeal to Lord Fauci argument.
You need a bit of clarification here.
You are describing what is known as a Courtier's fallacy. This occurs when one tries to justify an argument by name dropping, claiming 'experts', attempting to use 'science' as a Holy Word, and similar actions. The root syllogism of this is the four-term fallacy.
Example:
1. Science defines temperature.
2. 'Experts' claim global temperatures are rising.
c. Science is experts.
The four terms are 'science', 'temperature', 'rising', and 'experts'.
The predicates MUST share the SAME terms.
The terms MUST be identifiable.
What IBDaMann is describing is an Omniscience fallacy. This occurs when one tries to speak for everyone, tries to claim a consensus that doesn't exist as a 'proof', tries pronounce an unknown as a logical True or False or as an objective value. In other words, they try to speak as if they were God, or their own opinion as being the opinion of everyone else. The root syllogism of this is the Illicit major fallacy.
Example:
1. My opinion is X.
2. Y has opinion X.
c. Everyone (Z) has opinion X.
Here, 'my' and 'Y' is not distributed to the conclusion.
Democrats here on JPP and elsewhere commit only a few fallacies, but they commit them again and again, never learning, and denying logic itself.
One of their favorites is the inversion fallacy, otherwise known as 'projection'. It is blaming their own problems on someone else. They invert the blame onto someone else. This itself is a formal fallacy.
Since they discard the English language, favoring what I call the Liberal language, they also love to commit the Redefinition fallacy. When called on it, they usually revert to inversion fallacies. The Liberal language itself looks like English, but words in it have no meaning or shifting meaning.
This itself is also a formal fallacy.
