I wrote:

Unfortunately, wind power is erratic, and requires full back-up by traditional power sources. As such, it is never likely to be much more than a bit player in fulfilling our energy needs.

Apparently to counter what I wrote, you posted the link to an article touting Denmark's increased use of wind power.

I then wrote that there is another side to the story of Danish wind power, and provided quotes by Danes involved in this business which support my original argument, i.e. that wind-power is erratic, and I also added additional, amplifying information underlining some of the many, serious problems with wind power, such as the simple fact that all the Danish wind turbines have neither managed to reduce Danish CO2 emissions, nor have they allowed the Danes to close any of their coal-fired power plants, which seems to me to be the purpose of the entire wind farm agenda. No?

And that is changing the subject?

I think not. I do think, however, that both links work fine, at least for me on this machine with this connection.

S