On HN you really get the hard edge of denialism, probably well financed shills, very interesting. Clearly the massive non-sequitur in the statement below is su

On HN you really get the hard edge of denialism, probably well financed shills, very interesting. Clearly the massive non-sequitur in the statement below is super interesting obfuscation: the article states that global warming is real, so how can you call it fake if you agree that it is real? (quote) "Happy to agree with AGW but this is NOT what climate denial is about. This is why this article is fake." (end quote) As I understand it this sleight of words is used just for the confusion, trying to get readers into fast-thinking less rational mode. Then the money shot, delivered with no analysis, no model, and crucially, no evidence: (quote) "And the evidence to me is clear, the best route is to not deal with it." (end quote) We are not talking about climate warming, but its direct consequence which is climate disruption, a few degrees warming leading to much higher likelihood of extreme weather events, this has not been news since at least Katrina and the california drought & fires. Not dealing with it is not an option when your house is burning. Implictly there is the hope that somebody else's house or lake gets hit, but for the US it's no dice, there are massive fragilities everywhere. (Jersey, NYC subway, ...) Carbon gets gigantic subsidies, not just direct but also in military budgetting for oil supply protection. Please go to www.realclimate.org