It might be of interest that the US Senate has rejected the cap and trade Leiberman-Warner bill that would have imposed $1.2 trillion of extra taxes on the American people. Many Senators, includibg the Democrats who originally backed the bill, threw it out because the reason for it did not ring true. That humans cause climate change on a global scale. According to the science this is not true and CO2 is not a polutant! So the real reason for the wind farms, to save the planet by restricting the output of CO2, is a false aim and one to resist.

The real aim of wind farms is to get as much money, by way of subsidy, from the government, ie US by overseeing rises in tax that we can ill afford.

If Enertag UK Limited were honest they would present the output of the proposed wind farm as what we could reasonably expect, about 20% of rated output, instead of giving the rated output as the norm. No wind generator on earth has ever given its rated output because wind only blows infrequently , or is blowing too much as to cause the generators to feather off.

Keep up the good work.

While I agree with you about human contribution to global warming being next to negligible (we are still on the warming trend from the last ice age) I do feel that other renewable methods of generating energy need to be explored as we can clearly not go on burning fossil fuels. A) They will soon run out, and we will for lack of a better word, be 'stuffed' and B) The burning of fossil fuels also results in other environmental problems such as acid rain, which is being swept under the Global Warming Rug and cannot be explained by a natural warming trend. The only thing we need to question is where to get our fuel from, nuclear power, solar or wind and as such I feel that we must embrace as a country, many of these different ideas and use them as much as we can. As for your wind turbine rates, I would like to see your sources (I'm not being sarcastic, I actually do). Global warming is no longer the issue, we haven't caused it and we are powerless to stop it however, fossil fuels are and we must try and ease off our over-consumption onto safer and unlimited energy producing methods.

I agree with the above. We can quibble until the cows come home to what extent human activity is responsible for climate change. Governments have used global warming as a good fascade for a long time now to imply that they are 'doing the right thing'. This distracts the attention of the electorate to the effect that they presume the government has total control over our environment. The truth of the matter is, as has become painfully clear of late, the governement has very little control over oil and gas prices, especially since the UK is now a net energy consumer, and the ability to produce our own indigenous supplies of power is essential. To presume that the sole purpose of wind turbines is to reduce CO2 output is frankly delusional. We need to appreciate what this country's wealth is built upon (mainly access to rich coal reserves and cheap North Sea oil and gas for the past 150yrs) and that these resources are now dwindling year on year. We need to build the capacity to produce energy by other means NOW (or ideally 20 years ago) whilst we have fossil fuel energy reserves available to do so, and an economy rich enough to achieve this. At the same time we need to bare in mind that to solve our energy problems is not to solve everything. Suppose nuclear fusion became reality and abundant energy became available to all; the likelihood is we would carry on increasing population size, consuming more, resulting in growing environmental degredation. We would run out of space, arrable land, fresh water and so on. We need to question what it is we are really trying to achieve; a good quality of life for a few or a mear existance for many. Point being; we need to stop quibbling about minor details and waken up to the big picture.

Have we only just realised that CO2 is not the main contributer to Global Warming? I thought that fact was well established.

The main reason for Wind Power in my eye (of course our government believes the CO2 arguement) is the fact we are running out of NON-renewable sources; Coal, Oil and Gas. Wind is not used up or mined and thus is renewable and can be used at anytime. Coal and others however, can not.

Just because the greenhouse effect is having no effect / a negligable effect on global temperatures does not mean that burning the fuels is not.

By calculating the total energy release from the burning of fossil fuels every year and comparing that against the total mass of atmosphere and it's specific heat capacity, I have shown that the heat directly released released during burning of fossil fuels should increase the global temperature by 0.06 degrees centigrade per year. This is worrying, because the actual change in temperature every year is only 0.02 degrees. This does not include burning of wood or biofuels.

So, using this fact, I put it to you; is it better to burn fuel to keep the world cool, or to stop burning fuel, and use wind turbines instead?