Can we flip this with Morty as the defendant and Rick as the judge?

"It’s a perfect encapsulation both of Reagan’s charm and the limitations of his shtick: reassurance without content, confidence without justification."

Utterly Dumb

The POLL cited by me is perfectly relevant, if you read the context of my statement. Why is it silly? Because it and the other one I mentioned, which has been ignored thus far, undermine the "consensus" narrative, which is truly silly.

How do you keep missing the point? Science is not determined by consensus, but by observation, experiment, and reasoning.
The history of science is littered with beliefs that were once held firmly by the "consensus." Did you know that there was a consensus about putrefaction causing scurvy? How about the consensus…

As the article states, those polled were "professional engineers and geoscientists (a category of licensure that includes climatologists, geologists, glaciologists, meteorologists, geophysicists, and paleo-climatologists)…," all of them experts in their fields.

That's the game, right? Make appeals to consensus and equate any scientific opposition to AGW as unscientific. For what, so that you can dismiss the reasonable concerns of many opponents of AGW as not serious while advocating
statism and wasting billions of tax payer dollars on the boondoggle that is green energy? On…

Spoken like a true believer!

Are you serious? The truth or falsehood of a theory isn't determined by throwing a list of your personal bibliographic favorites at someone, but involves engaging in the evidence through a process of reasoning, which apparently you don't know how to do. This silly post is just a substitute for thinking, which means…

One other thing. Your statement that AGW will be a "huge priority" is baseless and runs contrary to the facts. Poll after poll have demonstrated that Americans are losing more and more interest in AGW and climate change in general.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You have no problem with a show reducing all opposition and doubt regarding AGW to political and religious commitments, while making no attempt to present and engage the scientific arguments that skeptics are actually making against AGW. You also regard as "well-researched" this…

Really? I made a few points in my post. Which one do you have in mind, and how does that particular statement invalidate any one of them?

More than likely, most conservatives and libertarians will not watch YOLD. And why should they? It is a one-sided conversation about climate change that begins and ends with the assumption of man-made global warming.