Wind farms - the continued debate

I saw another article about wind energy and interesting reading it made too: here.
It is always the comments that interest me. There are far too many armchair experts who not only voice, let us say, healthy pessimism or support but who spit out massively dogmatic statements that to be frank are misplaced.
For instance, the author of the article says that the claim that the new wind energy site will supply 180,000 houses is misleading since this would be only if the windmills supplied the electricity, if they were to supply all the energy required, the figure would be more like 35,000 homes. That is very correct, a common spin technique exposed for what it is. That didn't stop the comments though about how the government never 'claimed' it would supply all the energy to the homes but of course that is exactly what people read and presumably what was intended.
It still agitates me that people spout such nonsense in what will end up being a debate based in nothing more than spin, rhetoric and witch-doctoring instead of pragmatic economics and science which it should.
One of the comments was along the lines of, "anti-green rubbish, presumably you are suggesting we use fossil fuels until they run out". What an idiotic statement. So pointing out the errors in a system is the same as ignoring the problem? Nope.
Someone else starts a tirade about the costs of "tropical storm damage and freak weather events" which is of course not only conjecture but again misses the point that the problem is not in question, just the wisdom of the solution.
Then other people start saying we should all be using peat or wood burners and then the problem would be OK. Yeah nice idea, can't see it working in an office block in Central London though!
It would be nice if the government employed more pragmatic people to shovel all this BS out the way to make room for the real arguments and then let the public know that they know what they are doing. We can only dream....