Yes, because it surfaces the opinion that the claim was outrageous, which it wasn’t. Subsidising fossil fuels in a time of overwhelming evidence for the need t

Yes, because it surfaces the opinion that the claim was outrageous, which it wasn’t. Subsidising fossil fuels in a time of overwhelming evidence for the need to curtail carbon emissions is outrageous. Suggesting a political talking point might have a gotcha, with a request for correction, isn’t. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, yourself. In which case: could you please provide that? This is what’s annoying about the endemic “citation needed” pox on HN. This is not an encyclopaedia, it’s a discussion forum. If you have something to share: share it. If not, please don’t pretend other people have to do your homework.