On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:38:17 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:25:56 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

So far you have not managed to highlight any bull****, just like a
number of your predecessors.

On the contrary. I have highlighted acres of it.

Only in your mind.

It appears that yours is completely closed to anything that exposes the
unacceptable aspects of industrial windmills.



You just don't happen to find it convenient.

On the contrary, I find it perfectly convenient to expose the flaws
in your arguments. If something else crops up I may not find it
convenient to continue exposing the flaws, but that's life.

Weak point.


Ah, a trade interest group. Incidentally one with a long history of
forecasts which were in time shown to be inaccurate.


So this must call into question the whole basis of the SDC reports...

Not in the least. I note that you have no real response to the point
though.


The point is very clear. If one contributory report to a set of source
reports is called into question (and you said that it is), then automatically
the others should be as well. You can't have it both ways.

I notice also that the commissioners of the SDC can hardly be described as a
representative cross section of the energy industry.