It really feels like they're trying hard to manipulate the statistics. They mention that wind lost a full 50% of its capacity, but only mention that natural gas

It really feels like they're trying hard to manipulate the statistics. They mention that wind lost a full 50% of its capacity, but only mention that natural gas / coal made less than "was estimated". I don't really care what somebody estimated it would make, I want to know what capacity was lost. 10%? 90%? That and the last 5 paragraphs departing from just reporting facts and instead start trying to convince the reader of a viewpoint gives the article a smell for me.