There is a level of venom in some of these comments and didactic, and even perhaps patronizing tone (
probably on both sides of the argument).
Not exact matches
I think that if you read the tea leaves here, the president has kicked this
argument up and away from the jobs
argument and put it down
on the carbon
side of the discussion, and that is
probably ultimately favourable to environmentalists.
Probably not,
on balance, though that is not necessarily to come down
on the
side of enforced background checks, as both
arguments have merit.
As someone who's been travelling solo since I was 17, you could
probably guess what
side of the field I'm
on in this
argument.
That's an
argument than even deeply non-technical non-scientists
of the general public (and Congress / Senate) can understand - part
of their «figuring out who knows what about science» mental toolkit that Dan so admires - which is
probably why climate science communicators
on the sceptic
side are so keen to communicate it.
Probably a lot
of GRRRR
on both
sides of the
argument by now with actual root causes lost in the history and he said she said crap.
That is an
argument I would
probably tend to agree with, though many
on the AGW
side of this debate have denigrated the notion that the Sun's variations aren't really responsible for the recent increase in global surface T, so I'm not sure your
argument is fruitful in that regard.