From CFACT

By CFACT

CFACT just released a troubling report by senior advisor David Wojick about the dramatic threat wind turbines pose to bald and golden eagles.

Federal regulators concluded that the golden eagle population cannot survive increased kills from human activity and also determined that wind turbines substantially increase eagle deaths.

The feds then offered a solution only a bureaucrat could love, don’t protect the eagles from turbine strikes, but “offset” their deaths by reducing electrocutions from power poles.

Government being as efficient as it is, they then underestimated the number of power poles that would need to be made “safe” by a factor of as much as 241 and failed to save any meaningful number of eagles.

Check out Wojick’s report.

Executive Summary

Nearly 15 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the golden eagle population could not withstand an increase in human-caused mortality. However, a large queue of proposed wind projects sought FWS permits exempting them from harm they may cause eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act—permits that would inevitably increase the kill rate.

In response, the FWS created an offset program in which eagle deaths caused by wind turbines would purportedly be compensated for by reducing electrocution deaths from power poles. We now know this offset program has completely failed, as there has been no measurable reduction in electrocution deaths.

The likely cause of this failure is FWS’s use of a wildly inaccurate electrocution death rate. As a result, the number of power poles made “safe” is just a tiny fraction of what would be required to create a legitimate offset. While FWS currently requires about 278 poles to be “made safe” per wind-killed eagle, the correct number, according to the results presented in this report, may be closer to 67,000. It is no wonder the program has failed.

At a minimum, FWS should issue no new wind power eagle-kill permits until the glaring issues uncovered in this study are resolved. Accurate electrocution death rates must be determined. Given there are well over 100 million power poles in America, the offset numbers may prove so high that the program becomes unfeasible. In that case, wind power development must stop. Existing facilities may need to be retired as well.

READ THE FULL REPORT

Charles Rotter

Here comes the latest act in the grand theatre of climate melodrama: a chorus of self-appointed guardians, convinced they are on the losing side of the argument, now clutching at every conspiracy theory that drifts across their newsfeeds. They thunder about “dark money” behind every dissenting tweet, accuse shadowy forces of “virulent disinformation,” and summon fossil-fuel lobbyists into every room—sometimes even under the bed—to explain why anyone dares question their sacred models. The real punchline? Their kneejerk conspiratorial caterwauling betrays one thing above all: that the debate of ideas is slipping through their fingers, and they have no rational reply save to imagine enemies in every closet.

This is not just a difference of political opinion or healthy debate. It is a coordinated, well-funded campaign to delay action, erode trust and protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, which profits most from the status quo. These narratives find fertile ground on social media, where algorithms prioritise outrage over facts. They also thrive in moments of crisis and confusion, playing on existing frustrations among communities who don’t feel their voices are heard by those in charge.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/23/london-paris-vicious-backlash-climate-action-sadiq-khan-anne-hidalgo

The mayors of London and Paris bemoan “a surge in climate deniers and delayers spreading virulent disinformation,” as if any skeptical question automatically signals a secret cabal . Their choice of words betrays the familiar tactic: paint every critic as a hireling of Big Oil, then claim moral victory because nobody would dare question “consensus” in the heat of such righteous indignation. When reason fails, conspiracy theories rear their heads.

They trumpet the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) in London as “a policy proven to cut pollution and save lives,” invoking it like a holy relic against all who would dare drive a slightly older SUV . Yet a closer look at the studies behind these “proven” benefits reveals activist-friendly assumptions, shifting baselines and model runs that treat correlation as causation. If a handful of months with marginally lower particulate readings equals hundreds of “lives saved,” then by their logic every cloudy day should cure cancer.

In London, the expansion of the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), a policy proven to cut pollution and save lives, was relentlessly targeted by disinformation campaigns. These messages were seeded by anonymous accounts, supercharged by bots and then repeated across partisan media. The campaigns combined existing fears about the cost of living with more sinister and racially motivated tropes, leading to a surge in attacks online against politicians and supporters, abuse of TfL staff doing their jobs installing Ulez cameras, and eventually dangerous and destructive acts of vandalism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/23/london-paris-vicious-backlash-climate-action-sadiq-khan-anne-hidalgo

Next comes the grand claim of improved health and longevity. One reads headlines declaring tens of thousands of lives spared by Paris’s pedestrianised riverbanks or urban cycling campaigns. But those figures emerge from computer simulations—pseudo-science dressed in activist lab coats—rather than controlled trials or real-world data. Linearity is assumed, confounders are ignored, and error bars vanish in a puff of promotional rhetoric. It’s the sort of number-crunching that would make any real statistician weep, right before reaching for the smelling salts.

Meanwhile, the myth of fossil-fuel lobbyists hiding in every corner grows. Why accept that millions of citizens simply tire of rationed energy, higher taxes and glamorous e-bikes? It’s easier to imagine “dark money,” to cast doubt on honest debate, and to accuse ordinary drivers of being pawns in some evil grand design. If they could bottle that level of paranoia, they’d corner the market on dystopian novels.

Then there’s the solemn warning that “disinformation flourishes when trust breaks down. Ultimately, fighting disinformation is not only a matter of public relations, it is about public leadership” . In other words, when a policy proves unpopular, simply call it “disinformation.” When polling shows the public edging away from Net Zero zealotry, rebrand dissenters as villains. Trust isn’t rebuilt by transparent debate, it seems, but by hammering critics with ever more dire labels.

At the core of these theatrics lies an unspoken admission: the climate models are shaky. Estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 remain all over the map, confidence intervals are enormous, and feedback loops are stuffed into parameter boxes no one can open. Yet rather than confront these unknowns, the narrative insists on celebrity proclamations and grand summits, as though chanting “Net Zero” can substitute for hard science.

Net Zero policies double down on that technocratic impulse. They transport entire industries onto the shoulders of distant bureaucrats, force-feed markets with renewable mandates and treat citizens like lab rats in an energy experiment. The result? Sky-high electricity costs, supply-chain bottlenecks, and looming shortages of critical minerals. Not exactly the health-and-longevity bonanza the activists promised.

One might expect that, faced with these mounting failures, the architects of Net Zero would pause, revisit their assumptions and engage in open debate. Instead, they accuse anyone daring to point out the elephant in the room of being in league with Big Oil. It’s a classic fallback: when the evidence doesn’t support the policy, show the messenger the door.

All the while, individual liberty and consumer choice get trampled beneath the march of grand plans. Ulez zones encroach, carbon taxes climb, and mandates dictate how one heats a home or what kind of car one can drive. Public sentiment? Irrelevant. Expert opinion? Unassailable. Reasoned discourse? Discouraged, lest someone notice that complex systems rarely tolerate one-size-fits-all interventions.

The real debate—about uncertainties in models, trade-offs in policy, and the proper role of government—has become the hostage of conspiracy-fuelled rhetoric. Critics aren’t invited to the table; they’re cast as saboteurs. Meanwhile, the truth of individual responsibility and local solutions goes begging, sacrificed on the altar of centralized control.

If the climate movement truly believed in its science, it would welcome rigorous scrutiny and healthy skepticism. Instead, it panders to fear, scapegoats dissenters, and resorts to high-volume caterwauling about nonexistent lobbyists under the bed. Like any dogmatic creed, it treats questions as heresy and uses conspiracy to mask the cracks in its foundation.

At its best, skepticism means holding judgment in suspension, demanding evidence, and remaining open to revision. At its worst, the current climate crusade has weaponised skepticism into a cudgel against honest inquiry. When every challenge is labelled a lie, the true dishonesty lies in refusing to acknowledge uncertainty.

The public is waking up. People notice higher energy bills, less reliable power and an endless parade of doomsday forecasts that never materialize. They’re not puppets of Big Oil; they’re citizens who prefer transparent debate over hushed conspiracies. If the climate lobby had confidence in its case, it wouldn’t be scrambling to paint critics as mind-controlled villains.

The next time a mayor or activist declares that only a “surge” of bureaucratic zeal can save us from imaginary marauders, remember: the real threat isn’t fossil fuels or oil executives. It’s a movement that abandons reason, wraps itself in conspiracy, and mistakes conspiracy for conviction. That drama belongs in a pulpy thriller novel, not in the serious debate of public policy.