Appeal to authority is a well-recognized strategy in climate communication aimed at improving public response. However, existing research has mainly focused on assessing the impact of including this strategy in climate communication, overlooking how the frequency of such appeals affects the public’s response. This study seeks to address two key questions: First, how does frequent appeals to authority shape public response to climate communication? Second, how is this influence moderated by authority type structure? To comprehensively explore these questions, our study conducts an in-depth analysis, including a text analysis and two experimental studies, to examine the correlations and causations between these variables. Our findings reveal that (1) compared to occasional appeals to authority, frequent appeals significantly reduce the public’s attitude and emotional response to climate communication, with this effect being mediated by the perceived intent to persuade. However, this conclusion is only valid when there is a low-equilibrium authority type structure. (2) Conversely, in a high-equilibrium authority type structure, frequent appeals to authority notably enhance the public’s attitude and emotional response to climate communication, and this enhancement occurs independently of the perceived intent to persuade. The insights from this study provide valuable guidance for effectively using the appeal to authority strategy in climate communication, with the ultimate goal of improving the public’s response.