By Andy May
Leah Stokes is the senior author of a new paper in PNAS, Prevalence and predictors of wind energy opposition in North America, in which she blames White people for opposing wind projects. She goes on to say that “…wealthier, Whiter communities [opposition] leads to continued pollution in poorer communities, and communities of color.”
There is evidence that offshore wind projects, or at least the geophysical site surveys required for building them, harm whales. The fact that these geophysical surveys can harm whales is well known and regulations prohibit the surveys, but numerous authorizations for surveys [waiving the rules] for renewable wind projects have been granted anyway. There is also evidence that wind turbines can harm our health, due to the low frequency sounds they produce. Thus, there are good reasons to protest wind turbine development, whether the protestor is White or not.
Stokes claims in her paper that she has “no competing interest.” This was accepted by the editor of the paper, Michael Mann. Yet her podcast, “A Matter of Degrees,” has received the following donations from organizations that support wind power:
The McKnight Foundation supports wind power and moving away from fossil fuels, the same is true of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Schmidt Family Foundation. Stokes is also a policy advisor to Evergreen Action, and a senior policy counsel to Rewiring America, an organization promoting the electrification of the USA.
As I asked Google Bard recently:
“A connection to the renewable industry is OK and not biased, but to the fossil fuel industry it is. This seems to be bias.”
This forced Google Bard to admit that:
“Both the renewable energy industry and the fossil fuel industry have a vested interest in the climate change debate.”
Thus, Stokes appears to have a competing interest, that could lead to bias in her paper. Advocates of wind are financially supporting her podcast. According to the PNAS rules, a financial interest may include:
“…membership on a standing advisory council or committee, service on the board of directors, public association with the company or its products, … compensation as a spokesperson, … or financial support.”
Do I need to ask why she left out her competing interests, or why Michael Mann accepted the paper with the “no conflict of interest” statement?
h/t Willie Soon and Matthew Nisbet.
She looks so pious, and yet she’s actually a nasty racist.
”She looks so pious”
More like…. Wealthier white people a the cause of all the……….oh look!, a butterfly….”
Is that Nick in drag?
As Joey Tribiani pointed out, it’s “smell the fart” acting!
The author information for Leah C. Stokes cited in association with the article mentioned above for which she was principle author (ref: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2302313120 ) states:
“Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA”
In her own words on her own website (https://www.leahstokes.com/ ) she gives self-damnation as to her allegations given in the subject paper re “White people”:
“I work on energy, climate and environmental politics.”
Note the word “politics”.
Her CV, available at her above-cited website, show a dearth of hard science-specific education . . . and it shows . . . here is a statement taken verbatim from the Stokes, et.al., PNAS paper cited in the above article:
“Analyzing the names of people listed in articles describing opposition to US wind projects, we found that opponents were overwhelmingly likely to be White.”
She and her co-authors discern race based on names? REALLY???
It’s just incredible that this passed review by the editors of PNAS, but they’ve obviously gone over to the dark side of woke-ism.
Some people might reasonably view the Stokes, et.al., position as being pure racist, but it apparently gets a pass from those focused on politics, now including the National Academy of Sciences.
So much smug!
It boggles my mind how some people think that the world can run on sunshine and breezes. Do they not know how FF are used beyond transportation? They seem not to know any chemistry or biology or engineering.
And I bet Leah Stokes uses FF every day, every day!! Of course, the HYPOCRITE.
It boggles my mind how many rules that the rest of us have to live by, are routinely waived for members of the church of global warming.
Boggles my mind how a paper like this gets into a so-called “science” journal !
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with science of any sort. !
“ leads to continued pollution in poorer communities”
NO !
Continued pollution in poor countries is because the anti-CO2 agenda has not allowed the implementation of reliable electricity supplies to drive infrastructure for cleaning up those countries.
That Mickey Mann is the editor of PNAS should let you know it’s no longer a science journal. It’s reputation has been in fast decline and it regularly uses ‘pal review’ in place of peer review. MAD magazine is a more reputable publication.
I. Just. Can’t. So want to make a juvenile comment about Mann and PNAS but by some herculean effort I’m managing to resist.
Send it to me, I’ll post it for you.
“That Mickey Mann is the editor of PNAS should let you know it’s no longer a science journal.”
My thought, too.
Anyone who knows anything about the subject, which should include members of the National Academy of Sciencs, knows that Michael Mann is not a credible source. He’s a propagandist.
Yep, all our science institutions have been corrupted by the delusion that CO2 is a danger. There’s no evidence to show it is a danger. These people should know this.
To understand climate change alarmists, one needs to have a good foundation in human psychology. This unwarranted fear of CO2 should spawn a lot of psychology research at some point in time, when CO2 proves not to be the demon gas climate alarmists make it out to be.
Of course she doesn’t know, she studied poli sci.
It is easy to be biased when your knowledge level is so low.
Your knowledge level is so low, yet you are convinced that you know everything.
That wasn’t directed at John. I realize it could be read that way.
More fakery at the bakery.
But, but, but wind is on the side of the angels, or at least St. Michael Mann. So no conflicts are possible.
Math is racist, didn’t you hear, so she claims that no one could oppose wind turbines except for racism, because she can think of no other reason, given her innumeracy.
It is a matter of degrees of brainwashing. They are all absolute certain they are correct. And the rest of us are racist deplorable types in able to comprehend the “ settled science”.
And I am sure she will vote for Joe ,that wonderful, honest man of peace and defender of nature.
Trump might start a nuclear war to prove how “tough” he is. There is no telling what he might do.
Socialists have been making the same claim for every conservative since Reagan.
If Trump was in power, none of the wars in Ukraine and Israel would have happened. The evil rulers would fear what Trump might do. Instead, we have rotting-oatmeal brains in the White House that couldn’t pull out of Afghanistan safely and allowed the Ukraine war to begin. He is giving Iran billions of dollars and couldn’t care less about anybody but himself. So how many terrorist cells do we now have in our country because our southern boarder is wide open? It seems likely that China will invade Taiwan before the next election–take advantage of the situation. Biden is a paid foreign agent of the Chinese and will do nothing.
There’s no way of telling what anyone will do.
Instead he greatly quieted the Middle East down through treaties didn’t start any new regional wars and opposed NATO expansion even suggested USA leave it at one time.
My my you forget easily!
“Stokes claims in her paper that she has “no competing interest.” This was accepted by the editor of the paper, Michael Mann. Yet her podcast, “A Matter of Degrees,” has received the following donations from organizations that support wind power:”
**************
I suggest that a quote from Upton Sinclair might generally apply here:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
are you setting up willie soon for a take down
Are you taking basic English classes yet?
Just another one who attacks the messenger rather than the message. You and Mann would be a greta (excuse my spelling) pair.
Did you reply to the correct person?
Wha?
Why should he, he’s been assured that he already knows everything.
Doesn’t look like it, either that or his keyboard skills are minimal.
Don’t tell me you are going to try trotting out that old shiboleth again?
Aren’t you tired of being shot down yet?
Shibboleth I believe old chap.
Spell check accepted it.
Hmm. Tells you all you need to know about the spell check and nothing about how to spell the word. Look it up in a decent dictionary or, better yet, ask a Rabbi!
Another moronic post from moosh.
meaningless and irrelevant as always…
… with zero to back up whatever mentally deranged nonsense he is sprouting.
He’s jealous of all the attention Nick gets.
Are you still degrading this site with your utter nonsense?
I know I’m breaching protocol. But I was just listening to President Trump, that man actually looks younger and more fit than he ever has, despite the unprecedented persecution! Sounds great too.
It is like night and day compared to that … well that cognitive corrupt mess in there now. What level of destruction will have to befall us to get the 45 % that didn’t vote for him to be shocked out of their mindless state of … well I don’t know what is wrong with them . Their nuts.
Sorry I just can’t take it anymore.
I know the feeling. When I get too depressed, I tell myself that I have been sent back from the future to observe the West’s self-inflicted destruction.
Just walk around asking people “what year is it?” That’ll make you feel better.
Another useful idiot.
Calling her out is good, but useless. She suffers no consequences.
And it improves her kudos and earning potential from the lefty cabal funders
Story tip. Airport carpark fire. Hazardous substances. bound to be electric car. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24358532/luton-airport-explodes-flames/
Yes a fire this intense and destructive can only involve electric cars. The article says “started by a diesel car” but this is almost certainly pure lie and fiction.
They must cover it up, it does no good for nut zero
Whether it did or did not start in a diesel car is fairly immaterial at this stage – we know it spread rapidly to engulf nearby EV’s which then went off like bombs. Even if EV’s aren’t the source, having lots of them in an enclosed parking structure is going to make a small, easy-to-extinguish fire into an inferno.
I think it is probably a good guess to say the EV insurance rates, along with things related to EV’s, are going higher.
When the dust settles I really don’t think there will be any companies offering EV insurance, do you?
Coal is just wood from old trees compressed and heated by nature. It’s fully renewable. The CO2 that is released when it is burned is used by trees to create more trees and nature eventually turns these old trees into coal.
And those old trees died when the Earth’s atmosphere was really, really cold. So that carbon has been geologically sequestered for hundred of millions of years. FREE THE CARBON!!
Consider the source:
https://www.leahstokes.com/
-Leah Stokes
Dr. Stokes is also lead author on 5 of the 55 citations in the paper.
Nope, no conflicts there. Move along, nothing to see here, folks.
I never knew a person could acquire so many worthless qualifications.
Is she related to Nick Stokes?
Might be the same person- here using the first name Nick- after all, she would be terrified to be known as a female here amongst all the extreme right, white racists all on the take from the ff industries, active here. /sarc
More conflict of interest…
“Stokes is a senior policy consultant at Evergreen Action and Rewiring America.”
Her whole life and income depends totally on supporting the climate scam. !
She is not remotely a scientist, more a rabid political activist.
No wonder Mickey Mann supports her.
Lots of people like her here in Wokeachusetts.
did you mean “like her” or “are like her”?
Though I suspect both meanings work.
I meant “are like her”- such as our lesbian governor- no offense to any lesbians reading this. I detest governor Healey. She’s so woke that she listened to forestry haters so she shut down all forestry work on state land for this year. She’s pushing hard for “wind factories” (best way to describe them) at sea. She’s been in favor of sanctuary cities- but now that the state is a favorite place for illegals- and many towns are complaining to her about it- she’s saying we have a housing problem, without admitting she’s part of the problem. It’s now costing the state $45 million/month to house the illegals.
Spending that kind of money to “house the homeless” is a choice. A poor one, on the face of it.
The illegals- mostly uneducated- shouldn’t come to Wokeachusetts where there are few jobs for farm hands or industrial workers. They should have gone and could still go to the south- where there are both. Just watched a video about the booming industrial scene in GA and other southern states. Our governor could just give bus tickets to them- a win-win situation, rather than that huge expense on the taxpayers.
Correct, just another shouty voice chasing lucrative funding
I don’t see any conflict of interest here. The article is about who has successfully objected to wind farms in the US. Whether or not the author is in favour of wind farms is thus irrelevant. It might explain why the author wanted to study such a subject but it doesn’t effect the results.
But this appears to be the second case today where commentators prefer to attack the messengers rather than the message. There doesn’t appear to be any comments on whether or not the analysis is correct.
lzaak its a short link,
“ suggests an environmental justice challenge we term “energy privilege,” wherein the delay and cancellation of clean energy in wealthier, Whiter communities leads to continued…. “
The usual commie line…rich people are not giving up enough, making poor people poorer by “taking” their money, but don’t worry us central planners are going to take away their ill gotten riches and give it to you, blah,blah, repeated in sincere tones until millions are dead, starved, in gulags, or at a very minimum equally living in poverty with a pittance paycheck for reporting their neighbour’s political dissension.
It is not the usual commie line but a simple fact. Polluting industries are always more likely to be located in poorer neighbhoods while the wealthy benefit. The rich have the time and money to spend on campaigns and lobbying to ensure that everything from power stations to landfill are not located in wealthy areas.
Yet you and your anti-CO2 cabal would DENY these developing countries the wherewithal to overcome their problems.
You DENY them solid reliable energy from fossil fuels , which is the mainstay of ALL civilised and developed nations that allows them to combat real pollution.
They’re aren’t many industries LEFT in North America and the UK. Isn’t it great that those poor folks no longer have jobs in those polluting industries? Sounds like your real objection is the fact that there are poor neighborhoods and wealthy neighborhoods. It’s reality. Grow up. People in poor ‘hoods should make sure their kids DO THEIR HOMEWORK so they can get better jobs and move into MIDDLE CLASS ‘hoods, which is where MOST Americans and Brits live. It’s not just serfs and aristocracy, which is what you’re implying.
I see Izaak really does believe the communist drivel.
1) Those polluting industries, almost always, were there first. The poor people moved in later. Usually because that’s were the jobs are.
2) Industries move to where land is cheap. Land is never cheap in the wealthy neighborhoods.
The evil conspiracies that infest your fevered imaginations, never existed.
Red card, Izaak. First comes your misleading phrase – “polluting industries” implying that industries that manufacture things are automatically “polluting.” That may have been somewhat true over 50 years ago, before we understood the risks and damages involved and before we had the technologies to control the pollution. Today, I would feel safer living next door to a petroleum refinery than to live in south Chicago. Also, please explain Harlem in upper Manhattan, Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, downtown Portland and San Francisco, either poor crime-ridden neighborhoods nowhere near “polluting industries” or wealthy center-cities with rampant filth and crime.
Of course heavy industries do indeed locate in areas that are not prime for high quality of life development – bottomland, down gradient of cities, near rail and waterways. In early industry in America, the companies wanted their workers nearby in affordable housing, so they built whole neighborhoods for their employees next to the plants. Over time, these became run-down poor neighborhoods, then the poor claimed environmental injustice. Were it not for the industries, there would be nothing and no one there.
As an analogy, in the 1960s, Dallas Love Field was the main DFW metro area airport, but it was landlocked and noisy. So land was acquired and a massive airport constructed in open country 5 to 10 miles from the nearest towns or developments. People and businesses wanted to be nearby, so 50 years later, the airport’s boundaries are entirely surrounded in dense urban growth. Now these same people who wanted to be near the airport complain of airport noise.
Finally, solar and wind farms are NOT being constructed in rich, white areas. They are invading the real environment, farms, ranches and small towns. If urban environmentalists, who are clueless about the source of their food, clothing, energy and manufactured goods, want wind power, let them build it in their own cities where they live. The wind blows over San Francisco and Boston just as well.
The post is about an actual conflict of interest where she specifically says there’s none.
Why would the content be of more than passing interest?
Can you set out your reasons for thinking there’s no conflict of interest involved?
Like Nick and Mosh, Izaak’s goal is distraction, not edification.
ROFLMAO.
It is a childish anti-science propaganda hit piece.
It comes DIRECT from her incestuous dependency relationship with the renewable scam industry.
The so-called “message” is a bunch of fictious nonsense, aimed purely at denigrating those who don’t agree with her rancid, anti-science, point of view.
Pity you are so brainless and blind that you cannot see that !.
Izaak,
You write:
The flaw in your logic, and hers, is that you assume the volume and toxicity of the pollution due to wind farms is less than that of fossil fuels. This is not true, especially since CO2 is not a toxic pollutant. Ask the underage minors mining rare earths if wind power is pollution free. Her explicit assumption that wind power is cleaner than fossil fuels is incorrect in my opinion, and certainly debatable to any objective person.
It’s a fact, at least here in Wokeachusetts, that SOLAR FACTORIES are mostly put in lower income areas- whenever possible, in rural areas after destroying fields and forests. The theory is that the local hillbillies won’t mind if their low value homes drop further in value. I haven’t yet seen a SOLAR FACTORY put into any wealthy ‘hood or even near one. If you have a multi million dollar estate- you sure don’t want a SOLAR or WIND FACTORY nearby- which is why Martha’s Vineyard has fought off a SOLAR FACTORY for years- and a WIND FACTORY just off its shore for more than a decade.
Factories, of all types, go where land is cheap.
They’re NOT farms. In a recent article here about ruinables in Australia, the author only refered to wind and solar FACTORIES- which is the only honest way to describe them- and I suggest everyone here do the same.
I try to use the term.. wind or solar INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.
Is that you Leah?
The paper is so stupid, it’s self refuting.
Is she related to Nick?
She’s his mother – have you seen Hitchcock psycho?
Racist
As the JPF say in Life of Brian
JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman… to rid himself–
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you’d finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
Just another grifter making a good living and getting her stuff published from the fantasy funding mechanism – if there’s good money to be made by writing absolute garbage, ticking a few boxes along the way, then hey, why not
Remember ethics, morals, honesty and integrity don’t pay as well as globalist elite funded deceit these days
Personally, like the majority, I just ignore these greenafia sponsored reports, ignorance is bliss in this case
As this brilliant article clearly shows, the hypocrisy, self serving hubris and outright greed of those desperate to appear relevant, knows no bounds, like those climate tsars flying around in private jets, from climate meeting to conference, they are way too self important for normal rules
There is evidence that offshore wind projects, or at least the geophysical site surveys required for building them, harm whales.
Are they whales of colour?
Well there are some Blue Whales out there, do they count?
Andy, Andy, Andy. You wrote:
There is NO evidence whatsoever that geophysical surveys – i.e., sonar surveys – have ever harmed a single whale. None, zip, nada. Sonars are used on every single vessel that hits the seas or the inland waters around the world. They all work exactly the same. The power or frequency of a geophysical survey sonar is no different than the power or frequency used on tens of thousands of ship depth finders, and millions of boat depth finders. Not a single whale has ever been documented to have suffered actual harm.
Trying to concern-troll with such nonsense, if carried out, would eliminate all shipping and boating in the world. And all offshore construction period, including oil and gas production platforms and pipelines. And all transoceanic telecom cables. Everything and anything built underwater.
This is the same kind of BS that claimed for decades, with zero evidence, that cell phones harmed people and caused brain cancer. Again, not a single documented case, ever, was produced to support that supercilious and preposterous claim.
It is just fine to oppose offshore wind projects. Fine, but realize that it’s a two edged sword. The same exact arguments are used against offshore oil and gas production.
Don’t be stupid, people.
Would you mind furnishing the data that shows this? Depth finders only use enough power to scan the surface of the beneath the water. I suspect the “sonar” used to detect the soil composition below the seabed must be quite a bit stronger.
Duane,
You confuse evidence with proof, not uncommon. There is evidence that seismic surveys harm whales, but no proof. Some of the evidence is contradictory, a sure sign we do not understand the problem. This article lays out the case pretty well, and reasonably objectively.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mts/mtsj/2003/00000037/00000004/art00003
So there is no difference between the sonar used by “every single vessel that hits the seas” and the sonar from geophysical surveys? If they are not the same- then you shouldn’t have compared them- and it’s possible that there is damage to whales.
There is a difference in the power projected into the water and a difference in the frequency, both matter. Site surveys for wind turbine platforms must use a lot of power and low frequencies in order to penetrate the sea floor. They are more like oil and gas seismic surveys. Sonar is normally low power (sometimes no power when passive) and high frequency, with some military low frequency exceptions.
The problem here is that there is no evidence that similar geophysical surveys for oil & gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico have ever harmed any whales or other marine mammals… And I’ve been working the GoM since 1988.
I’ve been digging into this for a long time and I can’t find any differences in the methodologies. The same companies that shot site characterization surveys for us in the GoM are shooting the wind site surveys off the Atlantic coast, using the same methods.
The only possible differences are that the wind site surveys are over much larger areas than oil & gas surveys and that we have much more knowledge of GoM seafloor conditions than the Atlantic due to our decades of experience. On the other hand, we’ve shot the entire GoM with conventional 2d and 3d surveys, with much more powerful airguns, and haven’t harmed any whales.
Are those differences enough to explain the whale deaths? I don’t know. I do know that the continuous operation of these monstrosities will do more harm to whales (and consumers’ pocketbooks) than the geophysical surveys ever will.
While correlation does not imply causation, the whale deaths on the east
coast started when the wind tower construction began. There is a large
current where these towers are being built and that is critical whale
and fish habitat. Some say it’s the pile driving that is causing the
whale deaths. It’s not just a few whales but a large number.
The marine geophysical surveys don’t include pile driving. That occurs during construction.
There is a lot we don’t know, that is for sure.
Then why do vested interests refuse to investigate? Why won’t DEFRA release off shore related whale death data despite FoI requests? You cannot reasonably say they don’t without evidence, proof, fact – the frequency of sea mammal deaths around off shore wind farm sites is worthy of significant independent research and a moratorium until concluded
Stupid is as stupid keeps doing despite evidence to the contrary
Or is that insanity? (A Einstein)
” The power or frequency of a geophysical survey sonar is no different than the power or frequency used on tens of thousands of ship depth finders, and millions of boat depth finders”
I spent many months at sea aboard a navy ASW “hunter killer” ship with several different types
of sonar and there was in use some very powerful types that would in fact severely damage
the hearing of whales and dolphins. A jackup drilling rig and an off-shore windtower are
totally different structures. I speak from direct experience not some greenies talking point.
“There is evidence that offshore wind projects….”
In the recent lenghty article on ruinables in Australia, the author always refered to wind and solar factories. I think that’s the best way for us to describe them- not as farms or even projects- they’re factories!
Stokes? hmmm… that name sounds familiar….
You mean Doris Stokes, that much-debunked purveyor of fraudulent ideas?
Or another Stokes entirely?
They are not related, are they?
It would be wrong of me to suggest that, although the ‘Stokes’ surname isn’t that uncommon, it is associated with some quite notorious grifters and fraudsters.
If you want oodles of taxpayer cash in the West, just write a report shouting racism, misogyny, sexism, gender phobia, xenophobia – all the usual, over used lefty sticks they continually beat people with – guaranteed to attract great funding from the lefty cabal running everything and causes even greater division to keep the cash flowing