Here is an example of a point which you do not address: the definition raised of what counts as peer reviewed. You don't seem to understand what this means!
It's not that what you say isn't interesting, is that if we want to find out the truth, which your contribution might help us towards, we need to develop our understanding.
Just because your post is the most popular doesn't mean you are automatically completely in the right!
Your point seems to be that emission savings are inaccurately attributed to the addition of wind turbines to the National Grid. But by my understanding emissions are calculated from actual emissions from actual fossil fuel powered power stations. Therefore, there is no false accounting.
The technology that we are introducing is evolving all the time, the 1st industrial revolution did not happen overnight. Bicycles were faster than the first cars, but that was not a reason to discontinue their development. As the smart grid is introduced, as more kinds of energy storage are developed, and as other forms of more efficient renewable energy enter the system, over the next 30 to 40 years, we will move to a situation where most of our energy comes from renewable sources. Decarbonisation of the grid is happening simultaneously on many fronts, at least here in Europe.