NOAA’s “no evidence” that wind kills whales violates the Information Quality Act

From CFACT

By David Wojick

NOAA persists in claiming there is no evidence that offshore wind development is causing whale deaths. This is a false claim that is repeated endlessly in the press. There is lots of evidence some of which I have documented over the last two years.

It is actually illegal for Federal agencies to make false claims like this. There is a 25 year old law called the Information Quality Act (IQA) enforced by OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. IQA mandates that agencies provide accurate unbiased information.

Here are the two key definitions from NOAA’s IQA guidance:

1. “Quality is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity.”

2. “Objectivity consists of two distinct elements: presentation and substance. The presentation element includes whether disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and in a proper context. The substance element involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information.”

Unfortunately NOAA’s repeated claim that there is no evidence of wind development causing whale deaths is neither accurate no unbiased. It is false and typical of NOAA’s actions biased in favor of development.

Moreover this wind-whale information falls under the special IQA category of influential scientific information which NOAA defines as “Influential scientific information (ISI) means scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.”

In fact it qualifies as highly influential scientific assessment: “The term Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) refers to a subset of Influential Scientific Information and means an influential scientific assessment that: …. (i) could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any year, or (ii) is novel, controversial, or precedent setting or has significant interagency interest.”

The viability of the multi-billion dollar a year offshore wind program crucially depends in part on this wind-whale information. This evidence assessment is a HISA and IQA guidance rightfully calls for extra care and caution in making such assessments.

This HISA care is clearly not being given. NOAA has conducted no systematic studies on the issue of evidence. They have simply shrugged off the issue in favor of wind development. This is a glaring violation of the Information Quality Act.

Of particular interest is the adverse impact of sonar site surveys as until recently that has been the primary activity. NOAA’s website says the following:

“At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause whale deaths.”

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/frequent-questions-offshore-wind-and-whales

In reality there is lots of evidence. Bear in mind that evidence comes in pieces. NOAA may be confusing evidence with certainty, that is thinking that because the specific impact on whales is uncertain that constitutes no evidence. Such reasoning is completely wrong.

Here are three simple examples of existing evidence that wind development is causing whale deaths.

First, the year site development got fully underway the Atlantic coast humpback whale death rate roughly tripled and it has remained high. This is strong evidence of a development induced tipping point. Wind defenders talk about the impact of increasing ship traffic and climate change but neither jumped at this specific time.

Second, NOAA itself has predicted and authorized thousands of noise “harassments” of whales where so-called harassment includes causing temporary deafness (which us actually an injury). That deafening a whale could lead to its death is obvious and NOAA even discusses this possibility. Thus these authorizations count as evidence supporting the hypothesis of development caused death.

Third, last year Professor Apostolos Gerasoulis found a high statistical correlation between the specific local activity of sonar survey boats and clusters of whale deaths. This is very strong, some would say compelling, evidence that wind development is causing whale deaths. Correlation is not causation but correlation in the context of a causal hypothesis is strong evidence. (This is the basis for clinical trials.)

NOAA’s response to this compelling study is simply preposterous. They consider it in an obscure single paragraph in a 160 page defense of their harassment authorization for the Vineyard Wind project. Here they say: “Overall, while NMFS considered this information, it did not provide new information that links whale strandings to offshore wind vessel movement or surveys.”

NOAA falsely claims this groundbreaking study provides no new information linking wind development and whale deaths! That is precisely what it does. This ridiculous claim is clearly biased and far from objective. It is typical of NOAA’s handling of the wind-whale evidence issue.

NOAA’s blatant violation of the Information Quality Act by ignoring the evidence that wind development is killing whales needs to be investigated and corrected.

4.8 24 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
January 14, 2025 6:08 am

But wind turbines are Green Prayer Wheels, and The Holy Cause requires their promotion!

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 14, 2025 6:28 am

Also, there is no indigenous knowledge that wind turbines harm whales.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Scissor
January 14, 2025 6:33 am

I wonder if firing is adequate, or prosecution is more in order?

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 14, 2025 6:53 am

Use the most cruel torture–defund them!

Reply to  Mark Whitney
January 14, 2025 3:36 pm

Should that not be the standard treatment of corrupted or deceptive government agencies?

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark Whitney
January 14, 2025 3:40 pm

When it comes to Onshore Wind Turbines, “Don’t Look Up” at Birds, Bats or Raptors.
When it comes to Offshore Wind Turbines, “Don’t Look Down” at Whales, Porpoise or Dolphins OR UP at Albatross

Rick C
January 14, 2025 6:49 am

Trump should issue and EO forbidding any installation of wind turbines in the 625,000,000 acres of US coastal waters where Biden just banned oil and gas development. That might well result in the liberals backing away from the claim that there is no legal way to countermand such EOs.

Scissor
Reply to  Rick C
January 14, 2025 8:24 am

Off shore wind farms also raise sea level even if it is just a tiny, tiny bit.

KevinM
Reply to  Rick C
January 14, 2025 9:14 am

Thanks, points out the central flaw of dictatorship-by-election.
If you behave like a jerk while in office, what do you expect when the other team takes office?
There’s an argument to be had about “who started it”, but I’d rather not waste the time.

Bryan A
Reply to  KevinM
January 14, 2025 3:44 pm

First things first. ExO to remove ALL Biden ExOs
I do like the Ban Offshore Wind farms in the same 625,000,000 acres idea though.

Walter Sobchak
January 14, 2025 7:02 am

Net week everything will be different in D.C.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 14, 2025 7:19 am

That will only happen if every non-elected person or officer not confirmed by the Senate are released from employment.

Things will change, of course, but a lot will not, not next week anyway. In addition, the politikking and confusifications and suppression of information and so on by the unconstrained bureaucracy will continue, in only due to bureaucratic inertia..

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 14, 2025 7:19 am

In point, every journey begins with a first step, but it takes a journey to reach a destination.

January 14, 2025 7:13 am

Good essay, David.

Typo, us should be is: “… temporary deafness (which us actually an injury)”.

MarkW
Reply to  karlomonte
January 14, 2025 9:34 am

Also

whale deaths is neither accurate no unbiased”

No should be nor.

David Wojick
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2025 10:08 am

Many thanks. I am a terrible proof reader of my own writing. I see what I meant not what I said.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  David Wojick
January 14, 2025 4:15 pm

Why don’t you have someone else read it before you publish?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 14, 2025 8:18 pm

I can’t say why but I find that copying the writing to a slightly different format, such as from my word processor to WordPad, makes some mistakes stand out much better. It can even help to copy to a third format, such as Notepad or the online comment box and read it carefully again before Posting.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  AndyHce
January 14, 2025 9:01 pm

Nothing really beats a second, or third, set of eyes.

Reply to  AndyHce
January 15, 2025 12:07 am

Have you tried Grammarly, it spots most of my typos.

hdhoese
January 14, 2025 8:37 am

I got asked indirectly from a resident there about this. I recall writing that sometimes unusual increases in mortality are related to increased populations which doesn’t work here since populations are supposed to be low. Apparently old age very unlikely. Therefore, it is suspicious so the logical plan would be to determine another cause. Pilot whales do seem to strand in unity but others more likely have a more definite cause like several dozen normally well offshore Clymene dolphins in 1985 Hurricane Juan, famous for T-shirt–“I survived Hurricane Juan three times” due to its unusual circulation. I only survived helping with the analysis where they died alive on a shell bank which was obvious due to evidence of tail excavations. Unless they have some autopsy results it must be another cause so it is logical to consider other changes in the area. I haven’t read their nonsense lately but added that I wasn’t impressed at the time about their analyses.

The ocean is a tough place to earn a living and not that easy to study which they don’t seem to understand. Clymene was the daughter of Tethys and Oceanus.

January 14, 2025 8:45 am

“A sonar bathymetric survey for a single oil platform causes dangerous impacts on marine creatures.”

“A sonar bathymetric survey for hundreds of offshore wind turbines does no harm to marine creatures.

“This is the new Green Science that all of you must embrace.”

— Zombie Trofim Lysenko

David Wojick
Reply to  pillageidiot
January 14, 2025 10:13 am

Even worse is the survey for potential cable routes to land. I wrote about one case where the wind turbine area was 130 sq mi but the survey area was 2,500. It covered the entire NY Bight where most of the deaths are occurring. Plus there were at least six other surveys approved in the Bight.

David Wojick
Reply to  David Wojick
January 14, 2025 10:15 am
KevinM
January 14, 2025 9:11 am

The motivation for this seems to be “_they_ use fish and birds to stop projects _we_ like, so then let _us_ use fish and birds to stop projects _they_ like (even if the fish is a mammal).”

January 14, 2025 9:15 am

https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpretations/carl-sagan-absence-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of-absence

Carl Sagan: ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’

If scientific research has not been done to verify a conclusion, then no conclusion can be made

David Wojick
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 14, 2025 10:21 am

But there is evidence that they ignore. In many cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I see no bear in my car is good evidence that there is none. Ignoring evidence is not absence.

Reply to  David Wojick
January 14, 2025 3:59 pm

That is a different issue.

Saying there is no evidence of harm, doesn’t mean there is no harm. It just means there is no evidence.

There is evidence of something occurring, whale deaths! Saying that it isn’t wind preparation because there is no evidence that it is a problem is preposterous!

David Wojick
January 14, 2025 10:04 am

Great picture of monkeys ignoring windmills.

January 14, 2025 10:51 am

There is more evidence that windmills are harming whales than there is evidence that not clearing dead brush in California is helping the Kangaroo Rat.

Bob
January 14, 2025 12:47 pm

Very nice David. I have no respect for NOAA. NOAA may or may not do good things I don’t know. In an effort to preserve any good NOAA may do I think all of NOAA’s leadership should be removed. In addition all judgements made by NOAA must include all the material they have to make the judgement. By present I mean full access to skeptics. In any case it is not in question that we have seen a large increase in whale deaths in the area of wind farms. Until we get to the bottom of what is causing the deaths all wind farm activity must stop immediately.

January 14, 2025 1:07 pm

Maybe they’d be easier to convince if somebody came up with a model that ‘showed’ the whales were at increased risk…
/s

Denis
January 14, 2025 1:23 pm

NOAA pronouncements regarding whales are simply those directed by their politically appointed masters. That is the way of the Biden administration. That has always been the way of the Biden administration on all matters. Facts do not matter to them.

ferdberple
January 14, 2025 11:34 pm

There is no evidence Hoffa is dead. There is no evidence for millions of things that are true. But true they are.

January 15, 2025 12:13 am

David Wojick

I’m sure you are aware of this link:

On April 18, 2023, Sea Life Conservation, Save The Whales, and Ocean Conservation Research submitted a 78 page joint statement (with appendix) to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) regarding its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mayflower Wind (a.k.a. SouthCoast Wind) power plant, through the public comment process. To read the complete joint statement go to: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BOEM-2023-0011-0137

joe-Dallas
January 15, 2025 5:51 am

CO2 increases – Correlation is proof of causation

Offshore wind farms killing whales – correlation is not proof of causation!