His comment wasn't regarding locations where harnessing wind wasn't viable due to a lack of wind. He was discussing large scale wind power harnessing somehow being able to dissipate the pressures within air masses.
I can't imagine the amount and size of wind turbines required to change the air pressure within an air mass. This would be required in order to dissipate wind and make his "finite" statement meaningful. While not quite at the same scale, it'd be similar to warning about the finiteness of tides and using equipment to generate electricity the coming and going tides.
The point here is that Barton quoted someone else's paper. That other person's paper says that "Wind Energy is finite". Barton READ that other person's quote. Barton then went on to read the rest of the pertinent quote, which referenced the effect of large-scale wind farms disrupting wind patterns and screwing up the means by which the planet regulates heat exchange from the equator to the poles. At no point in the quoted transcript did Barton imply that WIND is going to RUN OUT, nor did the quoted paper imply such a thing. You're taking the comment that "wind energy is finite" and you're extend it inappropriately to mean something not supported by the transcript.
So when he says wind energy is finite, at what point does the wind energy stop being produced (hence making it finite)? What needs to happen to reach that finite state? The wind needs to drop to what, 5 kph? Where these windmills would be installed, that would mean a substantial drop in the wind velocity, making it virtually static.