From Climate Scepticism

By MARK HODGSON

And the dolphins and porpoises

The 1970s represent a formative decade for me, growing from childhood through my teens. I have so many memories, some good, some much less so, as I started to take an increasing interest in the world around me. Miners’ strikes, the referendum on continuing EEC membership, the glorious summer of 1976, the Vietnam war, the Winter of Discontent, punk rock and much more. One of my most vivid memories, however, is of the brave campaign fought by Greenpeace to save the whale, to bring an end to commercial whale hunting. Time and again the Davids of Greenpeace pitted themselves against the Goliaths of commercial whalers. Greenpeace has just cause to be proud of its work in helping to bring about a ban on commercial whaling, and its website tells the story here.

Fast-forward half a century, however, and we find a rather different story. So far as Greenpeace is concerned, whales are under threat from three main challenges – plastic in the oceans, deep sea mining, and climate change. In addition, Greenpeace says that “[p]ollution, noise, fishing, shipping and habitat loss also put them under pressure.” All of which is probably true (though given that whales have the entire oceans to roam, representing two thirds of the globe’s surface, I reserve judgement on the threat from climate change).

In the last few years I have noticed what certainly looks like a significant upward trend in an old phenomenon – whale strandings. The other thing I have noticed is that these often seem to occur in locations where offshore wind farms have been constructed or where survey work is taking place to ascertain whether the locations are suitable for wind farms. Of course, correlation is not causation (not necessarily, anyway) but the remarkable coincidence between increased whale strandings and wind farm developments is such that one might have thought that environmentalists generally, and Greenpeace specifically (in view of its proud track record in helping to protect whales) would be looking at this development with a jaundiced view and questioning whether or not there might be a connection.

One might have thought that, but one would be wrong. Instead, the reverse is the case. Not only is Greenpeace not wondering whether there might be a worrying nexus, rather they are going out of their way to give wind farm developers a free pass, and to insist that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever. Worse still (if it’s possible for anything to be worse), they also seek to label those who raise the possibiity of a connection as the purveyors of lies and disinformation.

The wheel has turned 180 degrees. Back in the 1970s commercial whalers were killing whales. That fact was undeniable, and so the brave warriors of Greenpeace put themselves between the whales and those who would kill them. Half a century later, whales are once again dying in alarmingly large numbers. The cause is uncertain. Rather than contemplate all possible causes, Greenpeace instead throws itself behind its new certainty – the religion of climate change, which trumps all else, including whales apparently. Wind farms (according to what passes for the logic) are vital to prevent climate change. Thus wind farms are good, and those who oppose them are bad. Also, if wind farms are good, they cannot possibly do harm, therefore they must be defended, whatever the cost.

In the last six months or so, Greenpeace has posted a couple of pieces on its website that deal with this issue. On 15^th February 2023 it produced this under the heading “New report: Whales in danger as clock ticks towards deep sea mining”. Fair enough, so far as it goes, but its sub-heading reveals where Greenpeace is on the issue: “In the wake of baseless claims that offshore wind is a threat to whales, a new peer-reviewed report published today by the University of Exeter and Greenpeace Research Laboratories finds that the deep sea mining industry presents a very real threat to whale populations worldwide.” A couple of critical paragraphs say this:

The study, which focuses on the overlap between cetaceans (such as whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and target sites for deep sea mining, especially in the Pacific Ocean, says deep sea mining could cause “significant risk to ocean ecosystems” with “long-lasting and irreversible” impacts, including risks to globally endangered species like blue whales. It further states that research is needed to assess threats to these mammals, particularly noise pollution from proposed mining operations.

Arlo Hemphill, Greenpeace USA’s Project Lead on Deep Sea Mining, said: “There has been a lot of talk about wind turbines and whale deaths, but there is no evidence whatsoever connecting the two. Meanwhile, the oceans face more threats now than at any time in history. This report makes it clear that if the deep sea mining industry follows through on its plans, the habitats whales rely on will be in even greater danger. Instead of opening up a new industrial frontier in the largest ecosystem on earth, we should be establishing ocean sanctuaries to protect biodiversity.”

I share Arlo Hemphill’s concerns about the danger posed to maritime biodiversity by deep sea mining. However, unlike Mr Hemphill, I note that much of the pressure for such deep sea mining is the commercial desire to extract rare minerals that are needed for renewable energy projects such as the offshore wind farms that he is so keen to defend. The BBC acknowledged as much more than six years ago, Earlier this year, The Conversation, that hotbed of climate change alarmism, published an article with the heading “Deep seabed mining plans pit renewable energy demand against ocean life in a largely unexplored frontier”. It isn’t as though the nexus between deep sea mining and wind farms isn’t known about.

In any event, that single piece about deep sea mining, which included a side-swipe at those claiming cetaceans are facing problems caused by offshore wind farms, obviously didn’t deal with that issue sufficiently robustly. Just eight days later another piece appeared on the Greenpeace website, with the heading “How to Stop Whale Deaths from Real Threats, Not Lies About Wind Energy”. It doesn’t pull any punches:

Protecting whales means busting fossil-fueled myths about wind energy — Right-wing disinformation is the real threat!…

…Recently a new insidious threat to whales — and all biodiversity — has our attention: Disinformation.

In response to a tragic spate of whale deaths along the East Coast [of the USA], anti-science media such as FOX News, long beholden to fossil fuel corporations, has amplified the baseless claims made — with no supporting evidence — by a small group of local mayors that offshore wind farming is somehow to blame.

As noted by the marine mammal experts with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is zero evidence of a connection between the whale deaths and wind farming. Nevertheless, fear-mongering calls for a moratorium on wind power projects in the region benefit Big Oil’s fight against a just transition to renewable energy, while only pretending to care about local whale populations.

The perils of spreading misleading, false information may seem less immediate than a whaler’s harpoon. But climate disinformation moves us further away from the real solutions to the climate crisis that all living creatures so desperately need.

To debunk the dangerous disinformation distracting from the true dangers facing whale populations in this region of the Atlantic Ocean, we’ve consulted two-longtime oceans experts: Greenpeace USA’s Oceans Campaigns Director John Hocevar and Greenpeace USA’s Senior Oceans Campaigner Arlo Hemphill.

Let’s set the record straight…

It reads like a Guardian hit-piece, with all the usual lazy smears and tropes – right wing: tick. Fossil fuel corporations: tick. Fox News: tick. Big Oil: tick. Climate crisis: tick.

Speaking of the Guardian, it followed up last month with the defence of offshore wind farms and the smearing of those who suggest there is a connection between wind farm developments and whale deaths, with an article with the following heading and sub-heading: “Energy industry uses whale activists to aid anti-wind farm strategy, experts say – Unwitting whale advocates and rightwing thinktanks create the impression that offshore wind energy projects endanger cetaceans”. It’s all there too. It talks of:

…a trap laid out by rightwing interests that are sowing doubt to fuel public discontent over renewable energy projects.

Also in attendance that night was Lisa Linowes, a member of the SRWC who has also served as a senior research fellow for the notorious Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a rightwing thinktank known for its crusade against the energy transition.

This roster of attendees shows how industry interests opposed to climate action are capitalizing on locals’ concerns over the right whale in an attempt to block renewable energy projects. The rhetoric used by anti-wind crusaders like Chalke, Knight and Linowes posits nature against industry – but their reasoning is often flawed.

The SRWC’s strategy – exploiting gaps in scientific research or consensus to spread doubt – mirrors one long used by oil interests to delay the transition to renewable energy. Science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway outlined how climate deniers and skeptics used this playbook in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt.

Today, organizations like the SRWC are calling into question the effectiveness of wind energy in an attempt to delay or suspend construction of wind projects. Knight, whose group Green Oceans is also a member of the SRWC, recently self-published a white paper on wind energy that Roberts called “full of cherrypicked data”.

I’m not so sure about the data being cherry-picked. I would suggest it’s right there in front of us. It’s not as though the Guardian hasn’t been reporting on the unusual number of recent whale strandings, after all. A quick internet search using the terms “Guardian whale beachings” brings up the following headlines (with dates, simply in the order in which my search engine turned them up):

“Race to save almost 50 pilot whales after same number die in mass stranding on WA beach”: 26^th July 2023.

Linked article: “‘We have never seen this’: scientists baffled by behaviour of pilot whales before WA mass stranding – Environment minister says way pod crowded tightly together 150 metres offshore before becoming beached is ‘unique and pretty incredible’”: 26^th July 2023.

“Agony on a Cornish beach: what do whale strandings tell us about our oceans? The number of whales, porpoises and dolphins being washed up on the UK’s shores is on the rise, and human activity is largely to blame, say experts”: 25^th February 2023.

“Left stranded: US military sonar linked to whale beachings in Pacific, say scientists – Islands surrounded by US military study area, including Guam and Saipan, call for activity that harms the whales to stop”: 15^th January 2021.

“Stranding of three whales in Corfu raises alarm over seismic testing for fossil fuels”: 9^th March 2022.

“Beached whale increase may be due to military sonar exercises, say experts – It is thought sonar may scare animals into surfacing too quickly, causing decompression sickness”: 24^th August 2020.

“More than 50 pilot whales dead in mass stranding on Isle of Lewis in Scotland”: 16^th July 2023.

That represents a very short, but possibly representative, list. The cases of such strandings are legion, and they do seem to be increasingly and distressingly commonplace. I find it very interesting indeed that experts can seek to put forward all sorts of possible explanations for the strandings, including that whales may be adversely affected by military sonar or (perhaps inevitably) by “seismic testing for fossil fuels”. I certainly don’t rule the latter out, but I do wonder why the same experts apparently rule out similar noise disturbance from existing wind farms and from the research work carried out onsite in connection with possible new ones.

Both Greenpeace and the Guardian cite NOAA in defence of their claim that experts reckon wind farms and whale strandings aren’t connected. The Guardian link takes us to this. It’s from 18^th January 2023, and I wonder whether the apparent increase in whale strandings in the intervening seven months might make the experts at NOAA change their minds? I also note that they don’t categorically say that wind farms can’t affect and disorientate whales. The language is carefully chosen. They say things like this:

Since January 2016, NOAA Fisheries has been monitoring an Unusual Mortality Event for humpback whales with elevated strandings along the entire East Coast. There are currently 178 humpback whales included in the unusual mortality event. Partial or full necropsy examinations were conducted on approximately half of the whales. Of the whales examined, about 40% had evidence of human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement. And to date, no whale mortality has been attributed to offshore wind activities.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I don’t think that an examination of “approximately half the whales” (how approximate, I wonder? More than half or less than half?) which found that “about 40%” had evidence of human interaction such as ship strike or entanglement conclusively rules out the possible involvement of wind farm activities. If “approximately half” and “about 40%” means “ a bit less than” in each case (and I suspect it does) we are certainly talking about conclusive evidence for only one in five, and possibly even as little as one in six or seven of the affected whales. Also, failure to attribute whale mortality to offshore wind activities is not the same as offshore wind activities having no connection to whale mortality.

As regards the reliability of NOAA (which itself pushes climate change alarmism on a regular basis) I personally mistrust anything it says, since I found its monthly climate reports repeating the (highly inaccurate) claim that last year’s floods in Pakistan saw “about one third” of that country under water – it wasn’t.

One of the most shocking recent whale strandings was that referred to in the Guardian article of 16^th July 2023 above. The Guardian said, inter alia:

The cause of the stranding is unknown but it is thought the pod may have followed one of the females….

…Human influence on the marine environment – including naval activities, oil and gas exploration, pollution and the climate crisis – has been blamed for an increase in the number of strandings in recent years. However, they can also result from natural causes such as illness, disease or injury. …

…Pilot whales are part of the dolphin family and are the cetacean species most susceptible to mass strandings.

It’s all there – “ naval activities, oil and gas exploration, pollution and the climate crisis”. What the Guardian article didn’t mention, however, is that at the time of the stranding, surveying work was being undertaken in connection with a proposed wind farm just three miles off the shore of the Isle of Lewis & Harris, and which is very controversial indeed.

Of course it’s possible that there is no connection, but if noise and activity from oil and gas exploration, from deep sea mining and from military sonar can all potentially explain whale strandings, what is so magical about offshore wind farms that they can’t possibly have the same effect on whales (and dolphins and porpoises)?

Greenpeace activists were my heroes when I was growing up. Not any more.