Any society that is disrupted by criminalizing child abuse deserves to be disrupted, and will be disrupted.

What's wrong with this report is that the retired Oxford teacher was obviously paid by the Global Warming Policy Foundation to criticize windfarms. Wade wrote them a short commentary to put into a glossy, colorful brochure. It's not a scientific, refereed study. It's disinformation, specifically for the purpose of helping the GWPF challenge climate change regulations. And:

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[12] Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[10] In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016–2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

Also:

Charitable status - In June 2013 Bob Ward filed a formal complaint to the Charity Commission, alleging that the GWPF had "persistently disseminated inaccurate and misleading information about climate change as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas", and that this was an abuse of their charitable status. In 2014 the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality in its climate change coverage, blurred fact and comment and demonstrated a clear bias.[14][15] In response, the GWPF agreed to establish a non-charitable organisation to do the lobbying, alongside the existing organisation, to be called the "Global Warming Policy Forum".[16] In October 2021, Global Warming Policy Forum rebranded itself as Net Zero Watch.[17] In October 2022 a complaint was made to the Charity Commission by Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green Party MPs that The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a lobbying organisation, and misuses charitable funds by passing them to Net Zero Watch, which uses the funds for non-charitable purposes.[18] In November 2022, the Charity Commission confirmed that it is reviewing the complaint.[19] Three months later, the GWPF reported a "serious incident" to the Charity Commission.[20]

Climate change denial - The GWPF's first act was to call for a high-level, independent inquiry into the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.[21] Nigel Lawson suggested that the e-mails from the University of East Anglia "called into question" the integrity of the scientific evidence.[22] Subsequent investigations did not support this view. GWPF Director Benny Peiser said that the organisation did not doubt the science and was not going to discuss it, but want an open, frank debate about what policies should be adopted.[22] A spokesman for the Met Office, a government agency which works with the Climate Research Unit in providing global temperature information, dismissed this call. "If you look at the emails, there isn't any evidence that the data was falsified and there's no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It's a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."[23]

The retired Oxford teacher wants the money because his teaching pension sucks. He'll do anything, as we can see, even at the expense of a lifetime of nuclear research. As you can see in his teeny-tiny statement in the PDF, he picked unreliable data to make one or two points.

Nothing to see here except the usual climate change denial. But thanks for posting it, as I would not have known of its existence. It's sad that there are academics willing to ruin their reputations in this way.