When deniers like Willie Soon publish "it's the sun" and the argument is scientifically bankrupt, there are some grounds to be concerned when it is shown he has fraudulently not declared his funding from the carbon fuels industry.
Was there any error found in the research of the first post? Or is this a ad hom attack because the science can't be refuted? You seem to have no argument with their work.
---------------------
There are so many baloney scientific claims and mis-representations in the second article that you posted from. That makes me wonder if I should give it's financials any credence also. Just about every discredited denial argument is trolled out. But lets have a look at the financials anyway.
So the financials about government support for A123 and others don't look out of line. The list they provide adds up to around $2b.
But they then trumpet $22b?! Can they not add?
And no mention of the $500b p.a subsidies to fossil fuel companies? Is there no perspective at all in the article? Hint: no there is not.
They then ramp the claim up to $1.7trillion. For that they rely on a Forbes article, well actually an article by a Forbes "contributor", who counts the entire cost of all clean air regulation. And throws in the total budget for compensation to developing countries, for the damage expected to be caused by climate change, which is $1.3 trillion of the claimed $1.7trillion.
--------------------
Joke stuff birdman.
The only useful thing here is your acknowledgement of an estimate for damage caused to developing countries by climate change - $1.3 trillion. Well done on that.
