Windmills and Whales
The Junk Science of Faux Environmentalists
Visit the Evidence Files Facebook and YouTube pages; Like, Follow, Subscribe or Share!
The Squeaky Wheel
Sometimes you read a line in an article that is so nonsensical, so illogical, that you have to read it again… and again… and then even consider emailing the authors to highlight their typo. Here is the relevant sentence:
This is part of the backdrop to the campaign opposing offshore windfarms in NSW, which has developed momentum in recent weeks, backed by locals, fishers, tourism operators, surfers and MPs from outside the region opposed to renewable energy development. [Emphasis mine]
Now, it is possible that the authors mistakenly over-generalized in such a way that could mislead the reader, but my suspicion is the opposite. They meant precisely what they wrote. Some people oppose specific renewable energy out of preserving their own selfish interest—whether economical or speciously personal. For example, those profiting from the coal industry obviously want to preserve their income source regardless of its destructive and obsolete nature, so they oppose competing power generators like solar or wind power. Others have selfish concerns, such as those who simply do not want a loud or unsightly windmill near their property. These types of motivations are understandable, if largely bereft of any morality or sense. The notion that there are people who oppose all “renewable energy development,” however, defies the imagination. To reach such a place, people must be so obtusely ideological that they would prefer to sacrifice their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of their children in furtherance of dogma. They cling onto a deeply held belief developed and delivered by propagandists with no interest in or concern for anyone else. It requires a dismissal of everything that once formed their understanding of complex topics—education, scientists, teachers, news media, the five senses, etc.—and replacing it with garbage vomited by megalomaniacs who repeatedly spew demonstrable lies, exhibit no critical thinking, or engage in fraud while proclaiming concern for environmental issues.
Those who wish to disrupt any movement toward incorporating more sustainable practices have long engaged in campaigns of disinformation, lies, and fraud, tactics which indicate the lack of validity of their views. Exxon, for example, conducted its own careful studies of its impact on the environment and climate change decades ago, which led its scientists to quite accurately predict the various negative results that have since come to fruition. Yet, the company went to great lengths to publicize the opposite message, knowing full well that its exorbitant profit margin—itself built on the backs of taxpayers in the form of massive subsidies—relies on the continued destruction and degradation of the climate and environment. Through this kind of well-funded smear campaign of scientists and scientific media, especially women scientists, subversive elements have coerced about 1/3rd of the population in America into agreeing that the US should prioritize expanding fossil fuel production. Nevertheless, the rest of Americans recognize the climate crisis for what it is, as do the majority of people in most countries across the globe.
Unfortunately, it seems that tiny groups holding minority views on many topics somehow manage to possess over-leveraged influence on the debate. These groups routinely parrot moneyed interests, almost exclusively to prop up their own. In support of their misinformed or, more accurately, disingenuous views, they tend to rely on political rhetoric, falsified “science,” or both. These two methodologies feed off each other. A corrupt thinktank or scientist, or just someone who seeks to sow anarchy, releases something official-sounding, then politicians and others with high visibility repeat the conclusions of the publication to bestow upon it some sense of validity. That is how the nonsense about windmills and whales sprang to life.
Fraudulent “Science”
Quentin Hanich, the editor-in-chief of the academic journal Marine Policy and professorial fellow at the University of Wollongong, has found himself in the middle of the fight against the “windmills are killing whales” crowd. According to the Guardian, a study purporting to have been published in Marine Policy was posted on a Facebook group with an enormous following, even though the entire thing was fake. That, however, did not stop many people of public influence from running with its claims. Over the last few months, for example, former US President Donald Trump has repeated “conclusions” from the “study” at campaign rallies, stating that windmills are causing “whales to die in numbers never seen before.” While Trump may be the loudest voice proclaiming such unsubstantiated claims, he is not the only one. Trump’s statements maintain credibility these days only among his swiftly dwindling supporters, but others have dressed this assertion with the veneer of credibility leading many more people to believe it.
A prime example is a recently released “documentary” by Jonah Markowitz, executive produced by Michael Shellenberger and Leighton Woodhouse, titled Thrown to the Wind. Markowitz is a “documentary photographer and filmmaker chronicling his quaint hometown, New York City…” and a “frequent contributor” to the New York Times. Shellenberger writes for the New York Post and co-founded Public—an “independent news” outlet—with Leighton Woodhouse. While the documentary has only received about 14,000 views on YouTube at the time of this posting, I think it is worthwhile to dissect it to illustrate just how senseless tripe can be presented in such a way as to give it the illusion of credibility and scientific acumen. I will break down the claims made therein, then provide further context into the producers and their agenda. In the following section, I address the claims made in the documentary, citing the timestamp where they appear. The full documentary (and the associated timestamps) can be found here.
The Star
The video starts with its primary assertion, that the increasing number of whales found dead on beaches in New York and New Jersey “could be” the result of activities related to “offshore wind energy farms.” (0:10). It notes that “23 dead whales have washed up on the East Coast Shore since December” (0:18). This claim is relatively accurate. Since 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recorded 209 humpback whales found deceased on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. In 2023 alone, the number has reached 34. Following a series of anecdotes, the film then proclaims that its team began studying acoustics and other issues related to offshore windfarm activity because of the high number of whale deaths off New York and New Jersey. The subject area they examined, states the main star of the film Lisa Linowes, is the “geophysical studies to map the land under water in preparation for projects” (4:14).
Shellenberger describes Linowes in his NY Post fluff piece about the documentary as follows.
Linowes is a lifelong environmental activist, data analyst, and co-founder of the Save the Right Whales Coalition. She’s also an obsessive data nerd who, working with her husband, sold their start-up software company over a decade ago and moved to New England where she does her conservation work full-time and without pay.
What Shellenberger conveniently leaves out is that Linowes is also the founder and executive director of Industrial Wind Action Group Corp. Curiously, that organization’s seemingly sole purpose is to oppose wind energy. That may have to do with its apparent association of “experts,” many of whom have ties to fossil fuel companies (a similar claim Linowes herself levels against NOAA-affiliated groups in this very documentary about wind-affiliated groups!). Linowes’ organization is evasive about its funding sources, identifying them as a “diverse group of environmentalists, energy experts, and everyday citizens who share our concerns about industrial renewable energy development.” Notably, the fossil fuel industry shares the same “concerns” about renewable energy development. Wind Action seems to recognize this by trying to cover for its own bias. From its website:
The website itself was registered by Parkerhill Technology Group. That company is run by her husband Jonathan Linowes. Maybe it is this company that Shellenberger refers to in his NY Post article, wherein he states that the Linowes “sold their start-up software company over a decade ago and moved to New England.” In any event, Mr. Linowes claims to be a fervent pro-capitalist, though he has published articles opposing renewable energies in part because he claims they are “windfalls” for investors (Mrs. Linowes referred to them as the “bloated, gluttonous renewable energy industrial complex”). Mr. Linowes also does not seem to actually care much about other people, having stated things like unemployment benefits should be limited, that the federal government has no role in education, and that social “safety nets” should come from private charity. On climate change specifically, he says it “may have been a valid scientific inquiry at first, but is no longer an issue because evidence was falsified and billions of dollars went to agenda-driven scientists.” This is the husband of the star of this environmental documentary. While it would not be fair to impute the husband’s politics to the wife, they sure seem to align.
Mrs. Linowes is further identified as co-founder of the Save the Right Whales Coalition. Members of that group seem to hate wind energy (and facts) more than they might care for whales. For example, one of its members, Mike Dean, is described as “an ocean advocate and independent researcher.” Yet, Dean posts uneducated or blatantly false things on Twitter (X) like this:
This is provably false, but repeated in the film. Linowes restates the argument this way: “[it] is only when they started going in the windlease areas that we believe that the whales are dying” (6:10). The North Atlantic Right whale, the primary species this group purports to want to preserve, saw precipitously falling population numbers as early as 2010, well before the offshore wind farm was an issue. Moreover, plenty of other areas where wind farms operate have not seen an increase in whale mortality at all.
Another member of Save the Right Whales Coalition, Katie Finnegan, became opposed to offshore windfarms after becoming a “second homeowner” and later learning she might have to look at windmills from it. The site writes about her:
What attracted [Finnegan] most to Brigantine was its natural beauty and the sense of quiet calm on the 6.9-mile long island… Upon learning of the offshore wind projects planned for Brigantine’s beaches in late 2022, Katie immediately connected with a small citizen group in town, and in a few short weeks, Defend Brigantine Beach, Inc. was born. Her group started to get the word out with a Facebook page and grew in a few months’ time to over 3500 members. The group’s mission focuses on outreach and education about the costly and negative ecological, economic implications of offshore wind turbines… Her main goal in fighting offshore wind is to keep New Jersey’s beaches in their natural state.
That hardly seems about whales at all, and a lot more of a NIMBY gripe. Indeed, read Defend Brigantine Beach’s stated mission:
Our organization has been formed to defend Brigantine Beach and support other shore communities from the Federal and NJ State planned offshore wind projects, which we believe will devastate our beach experiences, local economies, and the local marine environment, while significantly raising our utility rates. [Emphasis mine]
Yet another member, Constance Gee, complains in published letters about windmills by making rather authoritative statements. In one case, she wrote, “The marine science community knows this much for certain: The high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys used to site offshore wind turbines and transmission cabling causes harm and mortality to marine mammals.” To support this assertion, she continued:
Here's the proof: As of mid-March 2023, NOAA Fisheries has handed out 15 marine mammal Incidental Take Authorizations (ITAs) to offshore wind projects from NC to MA. These will allow companies to “take” 111,817 whales, dolphins and seals. The harassment, injury, and killing of marine mammals are referred to as “takes.”
The 111,817 figure is the tally of 118 “Level A” and 111,699 “Level B” takes. Level A includes permanent hearing loss and other bodily injury. Level B harassment includes behavioral disturbance (such as frightening an animal from its normal feeding area) and temporary hearing loss. A deafened whale fleeing into a shipping channel is likely a dead whale.
The supporting documents of these projects do mention HRG surveys, but these do not present the primary cause for the “taking” application as suggested by Gee; nor are they “proof.” The primary activity expected to result in the highest number of takings, according to all the applications, is during the installation of support structures. Regarding HRGs, in the application for the New England Wind Offshore Wind Farm, the company provided this description of its activities:
New England Wind proposes to use multiple vessels to acquire the HRG survey data. Up to three HRG vessels are currently proposed to operate concurrently within the SWDA and OECC area. HRG survey activities will be conducted by vessels that can accomplish the survey goals in specific survey areas. Each vessel will maintain both the required course and a survey speed required to cover approximately 80 km (43 nm) per day during line acquisition, with consideration to weather delays, equipment maintenance, and crew availability. Vessel survey speed is anticipated to be approximately 4 knots (2.1 m/s).
The other applications Gee points to propose similar activities. Andrew Read, a professor of marine biology and director of Duke Marine Lab at Duke University, notes that HRGs do not possess “a lot of percussive energy in those types of surveys.” Read’s analysis found the sound of HRGs comparable to the sound of a “fan in a room.” In other words, the sound only affects a very narrow area due to its low energy, is confined to a small radius around the ship, and its spread will move at the low speed of the vessels emitting it, according to the company’s application. This will not affect the whale population much—if at all. The application acknowledges this:
HRG surveys include multibeam, sidescan, single beam, and sub-bottom profile sonar, and are considered an impulsive sound source. Many HRG sources operate at frequencies (>200 kHz) above the hearing range of marine mammals so are not expected to result in impacts. Research suggests that sound levels produced by HRG sources operating within the hearing range of marine mammals are unlikely to cause injury but could result in temporary behavioral responses. [p. 196]
Oddly, none of the members of the Save the Right Whales Coalition seem to have complained of similar “takings” and activities of oil and gas companies, which are far more invasive. Compare, for example, the effect of HRGs to that of the tools used by the fossil fuel industry:
The offshore wind industry typically uses High Resolution Geophysical (HRG) surveys to assist with their siting efforts. HRG surveys use a suite of active sound sources to produce sounds that are reflected off subsea structures to obtain images of the seafloor and shallow geophysical features. The sound sources used in HRG surveys are much lower in energy than seismic airguns and have other important characteristics that set them apart from seismic airguns.
Fossil Fuel surveys and construction primarily use seismic airguns.
(Facts) Thrown to the Wind
People featured in the Woodhouse-Shellenberger film do not ever mention the fact that the tools used by fossil fuel companies cause far more damage both during surveying and construction. Brian Sabarese, who the video identifies as “Captain Pressure Drop,” tells the videographer “you’re gonna put these wind turbines in, it’s going to disrupt the bottom… no matter what kind of marine life you affect it’s gonna all affect it all together because they’re all intertwined” (10:59). He continues by stating that whales “don’t have the fat stores to run around forever trying to get away from the noise.” He further implies that mother whales will lose track of their calves, presumably because of excessive noise. (11:27). What he might mean by the last two statements, who can tell? Even if any of what he said is true (a debatable question), he never mentions fossil fuel companies doing the same but on a far more grandiose scale. Yet, fossil fuel companies are endangering species in the same or nearby areas as the waterways shown in the film—the same species these people allege they are there to save:
[T]hree exploration projects currently being evaluated by BHP Canada (20 wells), Equinor (12 wells) and Chevron (8 wells) are located a few hundred kilometres east of Newfoundland, in a region that hosts numerous species of fish, sea birds and marine mammals. These include the blue whale and the North Atlantic right whale, two species classified as “endangered” in Canada [emphasis added].
Those projects that will directly affect Right whales by using the aforementioned airguns. The Canadian government explains how they work:
[A]irguns produce a seismic wave when compressed air is released into the surrounding water. The sound waves produced by the airguns travel downwards to the seafloor and into the sediment below. Some of the seismic energy is reflected back from the top of any of the underlying layers and returns to the surface.
Fossil fuel platforms anchor far deeper into the seabed, require many more ships, and employ much more destructive methodologies to build and to conduct their subsequent operations. It is odd that no one in the film—purportedly focused on the North Atlantic Right whale—mentions these projects which pose far graver dangers to that species, planned for the area virtually right next door to the wind farm areas. Moreover, no evidence exists indicating any deaths to whales based on windfarm survey-related traffic, and the film offers none.
After exhibiting graphics like the one above, the film shows a few whales surfacing near supposed “survey” ships (for wind projects). The film proclaims that “increased traffic” from wind surveys will lead to much higher incidents of traumas to whales, even though its own graphic shows no deaths in the windlease areas. Unquestionably, the incidents of whale deaths directly correlate to high-traffic areas (red dots are dead whales), as evidenced in the film’s own graphic (at 6:03). (The yellow areas are the so-called “windlease” areas.) What the video leaves out is that commercial shipping in the North East Atlantic has increased by 34% over the last five years, and 73% in marine-protected areas. The traffic shown in their own graphic reflects this increase. Increased shipping activity leads to changes in migrant behavior of mammals and their food, introduces potentially harmful invasive species, and endangers localized ecosystems. Globally, ship strikes kill more than 20,000 whales per year. In the area at issue in the film, this is a swiftly growing problem. What little windfarms may increase traffic volume pales in comparison to the harms coming from the current growth of global commercial shipping and the contribution of the fossil fuel industry (not to mention associated effects like abandoned fishing gear, biodiversity depletion, acidification of ocean water, and several other issues).
Source: savecoastalwildlife.org
The image above indicates whale sightings and ship traffic on the same day. Note the distinct parallel between sightings and traffic, and whale death locations depicted in the film. Thrown to the Wind’s own graphic shows that whale deaths align with busy shipping areas, not windlease spaces.
Thrown to the Wind also traverses into conspiracy theory territory. Linowes proclaims that “NOAA has a network of organizations that have a responsibility for going out and investigating any kind of marine mammal stranding or death. And when we were investigating and looking into the money trail, we found that members of that network are actually taking money directly from the wind industry” (13:00). She identifies one as the Atlantic Marine Conservation Society (AMCS). The film then features Allison Deperte, a research associate with that organization. Deperte states that she and her team examined a whale found deceased on the shoreline. They checked for “any evidence of human interaction, any evidence of infectious disease to determine why it might have died” (13:48). The film cuts back to Linowes who proclaims that AMCS’s board changed in 2021 and now consists of specific members of wind power beneficiaries. During these back-and-forth cuts, Linowes never produces any kind of evidence beyond conjecture and accusations. (Again, Linowes has her own problems in this regard).
Returning to Deperte, she notes that so far, her and her team have not found any evidence that indicates a connection between offshore wind activity and the whale deaths (15:30). NOAA states the following on the matter, “At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales. There are no known links between recent large whale mortalities and ongoing offshore wind surveys.” Of course, the underlying message of this video is that NOAA is not fairly considering the well-being of whales, or is relying on third-party organizations to supply information that is tainted by moneyed interests. But NOAA is not the only group of experts to reach that conclusion. Douglas Nowacek, the chair of marine conservation technology at Duke University, told FactCheck.org “There’s basically zero chance that those surveys have caused any mortality.” Examinations of around 90 of the carcasses that have washed ashore have indicated causes of death related to boat strikes and other human-inflicted causes, as well as parasite-caused organ damage or starvation. Marine Mammal Commission spokesperson Brady O’Donnell told USA Today that they found “no evidence linking site preparation work for offshore wind farms with a number of whale deaths along the U.S. East Coast.” The pattern of washed ashore dead whales and commercial marine traffic suggests that many whales are dying from strikes by the increased volume of commercial ships. Moreover, various institutions have been conducting the type of marine surveys illustrated in the film for more than a decade before the whale deaths started rising. Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence is that “other areas with high numbers of wind farms have not seen an increase in whale mortality.” Accusations of corruption at NOAA and its affiliates have less support than those that could be levelled at the makers of the film and its featured star.
After the discussion on wind power money, the film turns to Robert Rand—self-described acoustician and environmental scientist—who appears to be measuring the underwater sounds near a wind power survey vessel. He displays his meter which appears to reach peak readings of 150 decibels (db). The video does not specifically identify what generates the sound, but suggests it is the boat. The video shifts to Rand playing the captured sounds of the North Atlantic Right whale. Linowes chimes in, “I don’t see how (that species) will survive offshore wind, with 300… less than 350 on the planet today and this tremendous industrialization of their area” (19:40). Rand responds by noting how he could hear noise from the survey ships at two nautical miles. He then plays that alleged sound recording at an apparently loud enough volume to get Linowes to cover her ears. At half a nautical mile, the two discuss, the sound Rand measured would be equivalent to 90db on the surface. Rand concludes, “what I’m seeing is troubling… what I’m seeing are levels that are above the limit which NOAA itself set to be protective at distances which are much higher than were granted in the incidental harassment authorization, so to me it looks like an absolute breakdown of regulatory protection for the Right Whale” (22:32).
One could find pause in Robert Rand’s conclusions based on his agenda and history as well. He is a former employee of Stone & Webster, Inc. That company famously collapsed after becoming embroiled in a bribery scheme in Indonesia (there is no evidence Rand had any involvement, just that he needed to find new work). Rand makes money now from producing “studies” of the sounds of wind turbines and other wind-related projects. to bolster his brand, Rand holds himself out as a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE). Yet in 2018, in a hearing regarding complaints about wind turbines in Huron County, Michigan, officials would not allow Rand to testify because “The county’s wind ordinance requires the person that conducts the test to be a board-certified member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE).” The county found that Rand is not (and no evidence indicates that he has since become certified). Of all the certified acousticians that must exist, why did Shellenberger rely on a person who is not certified when making this film? Maybe Rand’s membership was meant to strengthen the perception of his alleged expertise? Huron County Board Chairman Sami Khoury cogently explained, “If you go on the web and you Google Robert Rand’s name, you find a lot of one-sided opinion on this issue.” Maybe that was Shellenberger’s reason.
Linowes then brings up onto a computer screen a letter ostensibly written on May 13, 2022 by Sean Hayes– NOAA’s Chief of Protected Species—to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) stating that the wave effect of turbines will destroy or disrupt plankton from its backend turbulence (22:25). Hayes, according to Linowes, writes that there needs to be a buffer area—a no turbine zone around Nantucket shoals—to protect the North Atlantic Right whale. She adds, “BOEM has said no.” Instead, Linowes continues, the priority of the project is economics over protecting the Right whale (24:10). “If BOEM chooses to look past the requirements under the Endangered Species Act and have these projects be built, it would appear that they’re in violation of the Endangered Species Act,” she concludes (24:20). But, Linowes mischaracterized BOEM’s response. In a notice of a pending lawsuit dated just days before [my] article posted (well after the documentary’s release), law firm Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP specifically complains that “The CVOW [Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind] BiOp [Biological Opinion] constrains its analysis to the CVOW project and ‘project area’ [citation omitted]. It does not assess or otherwise take into account the other offshore wind projects currently slated for development along the eastern seaboard of the United States” [emphasis added]. In other words, BOEM never said “no,” it simply did not include in its analysis any discussion of a buffer zone raised in Hayes’ letter. The attorneys articulate this in greater detail:
The BiOp makes passing reference to the potential oceanographic impacts of CVOW project, but stops short of analyzing them in terms of their ability to impede NARW [North Atlantic Right whale] nutritional and reproductive success. Worse, the BiOp treats the issue in such an abstract way, the proper urgency of the matter – which is evident throughout Dr. Hayes’ letter – is not conveyed or addressed. In fact, the BiOp utterly fails to heed the closing admonition from Dr. Hayes: “[I]t is critical to assess the range of impacts/threats and stressors to protected species and the degree to which they can be mitigated. This needs to include taking into consideration the chronic state of right whales and the importance of productive foraging habitats to these species.
Linowes has a point that BOEM perhaps did not give enough attention to the plight of North Atlantic Right whales, but is wrong to say that the agency steadfastly refused to provide a buffer zone. Rather, Linowes does not like the various mitigations BOEM requires in its BiOp, in that they do not appear to be sufficient to protecting the species, but this is different than saying BOEM refused any request whatever. Her definitiveness in her statement is meant to hammer home the point of windfarms being a purely “economical” (potentially corrupt) endeavor meant to benefit people she apparently does not like.
In closing the video, Linowes says:
What the United States is looking at is thousands of wind turbines, standing one thousand feet tall, the massive blades spinning in an area where that the whales… our whales, our dolphins, our marine life… where they live, where they migrate, where they breed… it’s at a level that we can’t even understand, now, what the impacts will be, and when we’re dealing with a critically endangered whale that is on the verge of extinction, which is the North Atlantic Right whale, our laws do not support the level of development that is going to happen within the Right whale habitat. The whale lives nearly full-time… you know they do migrate, but many of them do stay in southern New England waters year-round… and that’s a problem… problem for the whales, problem for the wind developers. But apparently, it is more of a problem for the whales (27:00).
The final sentiment on its own is an admirable statement calling into question legitimate points of debate. Unfortunately, one cannot take it out of the context of the remainder of the film that clearly seeks to denigrate wind power for motivations that supporting evidence suggests are profit or attention. The alleged concerns about marine life of the people presented in the film are little more than an illuminated window display meant to tug at the heart strings of viewers, while concealing their unequivocal anti-wind agenda. An honest documentary would consider the other causes of whale deaths, which at this point are the only proven causes, if it truly wanted to figure out the best solutions for the North Atlantic Right whale and other endangered species. It would address fossil fuel activities happening in virtually the same area causing far more extensive damage. It would avoid making false, seriously misleading, or out-of-context statements. It would employ credentialed people in the fields for which it plans to conduct its inquiry. But Thrown to the Wind does none of these things.
So, What’s the Deal?
This film clearly seeks to foment further controversy over wind energy absent any substantive evidence while invoking some provable lies to do it. Looking at the participants and producers, one can see why. Shellenberger is a purveyor of drivel for the New York Post, posting articles asserting many things without evidence—or worse. For instance, he wrote “It is no longer a question that the COVID-19 virus leaked from China’s notorious Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory“ (there is still no direct evidence of this, and most medical experts disagree); he suggested that the Twitter Files “revealed a large and growing network of government agencies… actively censoring American citizens” (they did not); and he characterized protests against fossil fuels and other climate-damaging activities as “infantile,” making sure to denigrate Greta Thunberg based on her age, while invoking the intellectually bankrupt version of “woke.” Leighton Woodhouse, approaches conspiratorial views more intelligently than Shellenberger, often adopting the Tucker Carlson approach of “just asking questions” while making pernicious—if obfuscated—intimations. He has published or cited articles proclaiming “vindication” of the Twitter Files in support of various ridiculous ideas, few if any of which have aged well (and frankly did not have much chance to age well even from the moment of publication). Woodhouse summarizes his bizarre, seemingly angry politics as follows:
I’ve written before, as have many others, about the increasingly religious character of the political left, which has also come to characterize liberal fealty to the public health technocracy. Much has been said about the martyrs, the prophets, the evangelism, the Apocalypse, and the Original Sin. But religion is more than just dogma and faith: a church also needs a flock.
Woodhouse and Shellenberger either fervently believe in, or (more likely) understand that their income depends upon, promulgating vast conspiracies in which their fantastical worldviews are correct, but suppressed by villainous overlords like George Soros, Anthony Fauci, or Bill Gates. It remains a trope of those holding extremist views like these to target those two billionaires specifically while simultaneously ignoring provable, actual billionaire villains—evidenced by their very public conduct—like Elon Musk or Leonard Leo. That Woodhouse and Shellenberger still rely on the Twitter Files to support some of their arguments tells you all you need to know about the legitimacy of their intent, including the intent behind this ridiculous whale “documentary.” Even the original ringmaster of the Twitter Files circus, Matt Taibbi, slunk away after reluctantly admitting that his own proclamations about them were little more than fecal hills of nonsense.
Woodhouse was an apologist for Musk for some time (maybe still), probably in service of his effort to get in on the (albeit brief) profit train of the Twitter Files. Both Woodhouse’s and Shellenberger’s propensity to engage in misleading or outright lying to their followers fits neatly with what this video is doing. It is an ideologically and financially motivated series of lies and obfuscations oriented to appear as legitimate science to the unwitting. Producing and hawking misinformation for both goes to the core of their occupations.
Faux Activism
Shellenberger runs an apparent non-profit inaptly called Environmental Progress. It is inaptly named because while he proclaims “Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing,” his organization conducts an awful lot of effort toward thwarting any useful measures to mitigate it. Environmental Progress’s website propounds many debunked claims, or asserts positions without context, which follows Shellenberger’s propensity to promote conspiracy-laden stories as facts. For instance, the website states, “Climate change may be contributing to some extreme weather events, but it has thus far not been a significant factor in economic disaster losses.” If this were true, why do parts of America face the loss of insurance due to rising costs associated with extreme weather events? As Carole Walker, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Association told Business Insider, “We're seeing escalating catastrophe risk, a historic rise in inflation, and the cost to recover and rebuild homes is increasing” [emphasis added]. The US government estimates a minimum economic impact from climate change-induced extreme weather events at at least $150 billion just in 2022, and that does not include “loss of life, healthcare-related costs, or damages to ecosystem services.”
Shellenberger’s site also writes, “that the only statistically significant factors for the frequency and severity of fires on an annual basis were population and proximity to development, i.e. how close the fires occurred to homes, businesses, etc.” That quote derives from this 2017 study. Notably, the website does not mention the full context of conclusions reached in that study: “evidence of burn patterns over millennia suggests that both climate and human activities have strong controls and that, at times, one control may override the other.” The study further pointed out that “One of the most consistently important variables for explaining strong fire-climate relationships was prior-year precipitation,” which is directly correlated to climate change. In any case, the quoted snippet on the site wants the reader to fully discount climate change as a source of increasing scope or severity of wildfires, and cites a study that does not conclude that.
Environmental Progress also states, “The increasing visibility and media coverage of wildfires certainly makes it seem like fires are getting worse because of climate change.” This suggests that fires are not worsening, and the narrative attempts to corroborate it by the bullet points it lists below:
And though the 2019-2020 season of Australian bushfires got a lot of media attention, it was a rather unremarkable year. The 2019-2020 fires ranked:
5th in terms of area burned, with about 1/6 of the burned acreage of the worst season in 1974–1975
6th in fatalities, about 1/5 as many fatalities as the worst fire on record in 2009
2nd in number of houses destroyed, razing about 50% less than the worst year, the 1938–39 fire season
The site does not mention the many places that recently saw record-smashing wildfires: Canada, Louisiana, Greece, the Arctic, etc. either in land area, emissions, or other aspects. Even if one were to argue that the hosts of Shellenberger’s site did not update it recently (which is not true—the video post is dated September 2023), listing fires ranked 5th, 6th, and 2nd in their respective historical categories is, frankly, the opposite of “unremarkable.” Numbers of fatalities and houses burned also do not provide useful indicators about whether fires themselves are larger or worse than past fires, or whether they are climate-change-driven in either size or severity. Ample other evidence correlates worsening wildfires to climate change. Changing climatic conditions leave large areas previously less hospitable to wildfires now much more susceptible, further exacerbated by human mismanagement and development. The IPCC provided an abundance of evidence of this, explaining that: “In addition to suppressing photosynthesis, field evidence suggests that droughts reduce the land CO2 sink, also through increasing forest mortality and promoting wildfire.” Another study concluded this:
Increased forest fire activity across the western United States in recent decades has contributed to widespread forest mortality, carbon emissions, periods of degraded air quality, and substantial fire suppression expenditures. Although numerous factors aided the recent rise in fire activity, observed warming and drying have significantly increased fire-season fuel aridity, fostering a more favorable fire environment across forested systems.
On a last note, Shellenberger’s site also says this: “Claims that billions or even millions of people will die as a result of climate change are simply not true. Activists who have made these claims are doing so without evidence, and scientists who have suggested this have been discredited.” This is an unbridled attempt to minimize the risk posed to millions of people across the world from droughts, increasingly severe weather, and food and water shortages resulting from climate change. By announcing it is “activists who have made these claims” or that scientists who have made claims like this “have been discredited,” the suggestion is that no one credible is making these or similar assertions. And as misinformation propagandists are wont to do, the site sets up a strawman—here, implying that the prevailing view is that millions will die. Environmental Progress purposely uses the phrase “will die” to subtly overshadow the real concern most activists and scientists have, that millions or billions of people will suffer as a result of climate change. The intent is to discredit those espousing either possibility. Nevertheless, it is indeed imaginable that millions could die—famine, a predicted climate change calamity, has killed in the millions plenty of times in history, in many cases a result of climatic conditions—but even millions “just” suffering seems important enough.
On suffering, 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms provides numerous exhibits of the profound effect climate change has already had on hundreds of millions of people.
A higher frequency of heatwaves and droughts in 2021 was associated with 127 million more people experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity compared with 1981–2010 (indicator 1.4), putting millions of people at risk of malnutrition and potentially irreversible health effects. The changing climatic conditions are also putting more populations at risk of life-threatening infectious diseases, such as dengue, malaria, vibriosis, and West Nile virus… heatwaves alone could lead to 524·9 million additional people experiencing moderate-to-severe food insecurity by 2041–60, aggravating the global risk of malnutrition… A record hot summer caused almost 62,000 deaths in Europe in 2022; extreme floods affected 33 million people in Pakistan and 3.2 million people in Nigeria; a record drought in the Greater Horn of Africa, made more severe by climate change, contributed to worsening local food insecurity, which now affects 46.3 million people… In the Horn of Africa, some areas experienced a full 12 months of drought in 2022, pushing millions to the brink of famine.
From one uncharacteristically hot summer, 62,000 people died in a place where air conditioning is commonplace. In some places in the world, the heat has already grown so intense that it nears a state of being untenable to life. Those areas largely consist of impoverished people, with almost no access to air conditioning, and comprise populations in the billions. So to act as if fears of millions dying from climate change effects is fearmongering is utterly irresponsible. Nevertheless, according to Environmental Progress, we must assume the scientists who produced the Lancet report have all been or should be discredited. All of these scientists (prepare to scroll some to reach the conclusion):
Using Junk Science to Spread Junk Beliefs for Personal Gain
Researchers and activists should definitely challenge even widely-held beliefs on any scientific question. Doing so keeps scientists on their toes, thereby ensuring the highest caliber of work. Challenging a scientific conclusion, however, does not mean making bald assertions that contradict all the available evidence without any form of counter-proof. That’s the purview of conspiracy theorists. Moreover, twisting existing conclusions to satisfy a preconceived narrative is no more valid than making up conclusions out of whole cloth. The video discussed herein grapples with a very real issue—whether wind farms will further endanger the already highly-vulnerable North Atlantic Right whales, among others. Unfortunately, neither the film nor its participants or producers—Linowes, Shellenberger, Woodhouse, Rand, et. al.—seem truly motivated by this concern. Rather, the evidence suggests that they only desire to impugn wind power, and renewable energy generally, while sowing distrust in scientists and scientific agencies and organizations, all in service of some other agenda. Relatedly, strong evidence supports the notion that every person mentioned in this article generates income from these kind of disingenuous productions and activities. Possibly, they do hold strong ideological beliefs that contribute to their motivations, but neither financial nor ideological compulsions justify their misleading people to achieve their immoral ends. If they oppose wind energy because of its unsightliness or its association with some reviled ‘leftist’ viewpoint (whatever that is), they should simply own it by saying so publicly, not weave some web of pretend environmentalist efforts to falsely portray themselves as the “good guys” when they are anything but.
***
I am a Certified Forensic Computer Examiner, Certified Crime Analyst, Certified Fraud Examiner, and Certified Financial Crimes Investigator with a Juris Doctor and a Master’s degree in history. I spent 10 years working in the New York State Division of Criminal Justice as Senior Analyst and Investigator. Today, I teach Cybersecurity, Ethical Hacking, and Digital Forensics at Softwarica College of IT and E-Commerce in Nepal. In addition, I offer training on Financial Crime Prevention and Investigation. I am also Vice President of Digi Technology in Nepal, for which I have also created its sister company in the USA, Digi Technology America, LLC. We provide technology solutions for businesses or individuals, including cybersecurity, all across the globe. I was a firefighter before I joined law enforcement and now I currently run a non-profit that uses mobile applications and other technologies to create Early Alert Systems for natural disasters for people living in remote or poor areas.
Find more about me on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or Mastodon. Or visit my EALS Global Foundation’s webpage page here.
For an article that objectively reviews the science on climate change issues in a region of Nepal, click below. For a less dark, but equally interesting article on “whales” (actually, orcas), scroll down further.
