Your first link (the credible one) says "This massive expansion of UK offshore wind is partly due to UK government subsidies." so it proves me right.

The other one is a campaign group who say there are subsidies but fail to name a single specific one.

Insulting people who come up with facts that do not suit your case does not prove anything, and there are guidelines on HN about personal attacks and assuming bad faith. Saying "Spectator bad" does not disprove anything it says either. Believing publications that take a line you agree with and disbelieving those that disagree with you is not a great way of learning facts.

> The other one is a campaign group who say there are subsidies but fail to name a single specific one.

It seems deliberately obtuse to try and deny there are significant energy (and thus natural gas) subsidies in the UK. Ok, try the Office of Budget Responsibility [1]:

> By the time of our November 2022 forecast, the Government announced a series of additional measures to support households and business, which increased our forecast of the total cost of energy support in 2022-23 to £67.1 billion (2.7 per cent of GDP).

> Insulting people who come up with facts

So you're not right wing? Cry-bullying about "personal attacks" for using an accurate political label correctly isn't helping your defense.

Pushing a conspiracy theory that a cabal of dark money is pushign renewable power and using The Spectator as a source is the UK equivalent of quoting Sean Hannity.

[1]: https://obr.uk/box/the-cost-of-the-governments-energy-suppor...