Do you really think that YOU can school ME?

Τwo people were arguing about wind turbines and whether they should be used or not. 
The first person was in favor of using them to reduce CO2 emmisions and the other one claimed that they destroy the natural environment (up in the mountains), although he admitted that there is climate change.
When the first person (which is also the leader of a hiking group) claimed that it is better to reverse climate change and endure looking at wind turbines while we hike, than have the forests burned down because of the fires intensified by climate change, the second person replied:
"Do you really think that YOU can school ME about climate change? Keep doing what you usually do (i.e hiking) and let the people who is their job to teach you a few things." without providing any real evidenec to support his position. The second person claimed a kind of expertise on the subject without adding anything valuable or specific to the argument.

Is that ad fidentia or appeal to authority ? It seems to me like a combination of the two. Is there any other name to describe when someone tries to shut down another argument by claiming alleged expertise AND by belittling the other one, without providing any valuable evidence ?

While only slightly different, I would say that anonymous authority  is a better fit than appeal to authority. But, I think they are committing both fallacies at the same time. They are making separate assertions that the person doesn't have enough expertise to weigh in, and that anonymous experts would disagree.

As always, I tout my mantra: check your premises.

The first person was in favor of using them to reduce CO2 emmisions (sic)[implied unsubstantiated premise that Co2 emissions cause or exacerbate anything terrible], and the other one claimed that they destroy the natural environment (up in the mountains) [Opinion. They do kill an estimated 4 million birds per year, including endangered species, for which Obama issued an exemption], although he admitted that there is climate change [Implied unsubstantiated premise that climate change — which has been occurring since the earth was born and will continue until it crashes into the sun — is manmade or substantially manmade.]

When the first person (which is also the leader of a hiking group) claimed that it is better to reverse climate change [Implied unsubstantiated premise that humans can reverse or even alter climate change] and endure looking at wind turbines while we hike [pure opinion], than have the forests burned down because of the fires intensified by climate change [Implied unsubstantiated premises that fires have been or are intensified and that climate change rather than other causes such as forest management cause more intense fires].

In addition, the failure to define the terms that form the core of the discussion is poor communication. The parties need to address these preliminary issues before moving forward.