Battery breakthrough achieves energy density necessary for electric planes

What subsidies? Again you are showing off your ignorance on the subject.

Actually I evaluate the presenters qualifications... Patrick Moore was not a climate scientist and has not published any real research on the subject. He was a fun, if somewhat eccentric, presenter of astronomy on British T.V. Being English his BBC astronomy program "The Sky At Night was a fixture of any child in the UK that had an interest in science - including me. However being a good TV presenter and good amateur astronomer (which he was) sadly does not necessarily mean that he is competent to evaluate climate science.

As for your other references it is interesting to compare the screaming headlines at sites such as you reference and the actual papers. There is a large discrepancy between what the headlines say and the conclusions of the papers actual authors. Additionally there is a conflation of facts. The website authors present a false dichotomy. Yes some parts of the planet were warmer than was previously understood but that does not mean to say that the whole plant was. For example we now know that the "Little Ice Age" was not a worldwide event but a local event in the European northern hemisphere. This, and the papers you reference, actually make my case in that to properly understand out climate system is a lot of work. Also the temperature 50,000 years ago in one part of the world is but one issue. Climate change research does not rely solely on historical records from 50,00 to 100,000 years ago. Again these site are cherry picking papers to fit a preconceived position and implying facts not in evidence from the papers themselves. If you look at the overwhelmingly massive amount of research done by literally thousands of researchers that confirms the (a) the planet is getting hotter and (b) it is being caused by humans it is really hard to support the conclusion that the mainstream climate scientists have gotten the science wrong. It is just not creditable.

And then there is the Hansen issue...When we look at the analysis done at wattsupwiththat.com website we see the same cherry picking of data to support their argument. They smoothly make statements as to x or y while the data they are using to support those statement does not actually support their argument. Hansen was not that far off and given how much better our data is today it is quite impressive how close he came to what has happened since 1988. See https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

But all this rather gets away from the article above. While I would think it would be wonderful to have electric motor airplanes that emit no CO2 at 500Wh per Kg it doesn't look feasible. Even 6 times that number it still looks tough. That being said for many other applications the strides being made in battery technology in recent years is rapidly expanding what is possible to electrify. The goal of an electric automobile with 1,000 mile range, 1,000,000 mile battery life and 200 mile charge in 5 minutes now seems distinctly possible before 2030. 10 years ago that was inconceivable.