That Denmark is "giving up" on wind energy.
Well its your burden of proof to establish not mine. I've already highlighted a graphic example of renewable failure
Which one? The one that includes taxes and adds that to the cost of energy or the BS graph so sloppy the originator couldn't spell "research" correctly?
Only time will tell once the subsidies stop. But they certainly won't last very long
So, you're guessing, aka have no evidence. #191
So why is my country paying £9 billion it needent pay for an increase household energy bills at a time of the lowest wholesale fossil fuel costs in years ?
You're confused I think about this whole "evidence" thing. You say the subsidies were "useless" then support your assertion with some evidence. Sorry, but your baseless assertions aren't persuading me.
Are you claiming I am wrong and that wholesale fossil fuel prices have not dramatically fallen ? If so what is your evidence for this ?
No, I'm asking you for some evidence about....well, ANYTHING. One possibility is the increased use of renewables has driven down demand, which would drive down the selling price. It's Econ 101 - shift the demand curve to the left (and permanently replacing fossil fuel based production with renewables is a shift in the curve), and the equilibrium price with the same supply must drop. I have no idea if that's the cause or not, but you're making assertions about the failure of renewables but cannot offer ONE piece of evidence to back it up. And it's child's play to offer alternative explanations.
I'm just the messenger I can't make you read the message
Your message is "Garble, garble, garble, bleh, liberals, greenies ==> renewables are a failure!!!" I got that much, but I'm interested in evidence based support for that position. If I want to hear the talking points, Rush Limbaugh comes on in about 20 minutes....
Ditto my earlier response
When picking out BS chain email graphs, you really should pick one that bothers to spell the word "research" correctly. It's a red flag. Not that the figures are believable, but the whole game was over before we even got to the figures.
Thats right as you have been shown twice already in separate international comparison graphs
OK, this is getting boring. I address your "graphs" repeatedly and you ignore the points, then bring up the same crap graphs again...
But as I said earlier, this is always a good thing to do from time to time. Try to have an honest debate with a denier type to see if they've got some evidence based points I haven't considered. I can't speak for the group, but you're sure doing a good job convincing me that I can keep disregarding the skeptic side and concentrate on the fact based scientific crowd in the "liberal" media.