There's a discussion here from a few weeks ago about onshore rather than offshore, but there are similarities in the way anti-wind has turned the tables on what used to be seen as good for the environment.

If you're running a PR campaign against something that has an excellent public image, it's no use fiddling about at the fringes. You identify the strong points and you turn them upside down.

Wind power is environmentally positive (little or no CO2 or other pollution)?
You say: wind power harms the environment (birds, bats, marine mammals, emits noise pollution, causes human health problems)

Wind power uses a free source of energy?
You say: it is diabolically expensive and fills the pockets of rich criminals

Windmills look clean, elegant, reassuring?
You say: windmills are a hideous encroachment on the landscape the sight of which causes anxiety.

Use the usual mix of think tanks, MSM compliance, political accomplices, campaigning associations, astro-turfers, and little by little you will create a "debate" or sow doubt in people's minds. Including the environmentalists who might once have been in favour of wind power.

Now, I'm not arguing that there is absolutely zero merit in these ideas, or that environmental impacts don't need to be assessed and dealt with (of course they must be). But mostly, these ideas do not correspond to reality (to be polite). And, over the last few years, they have gained increasing currency and can be come across pretty much everywhere.

Conspiracy theory? No, just the convergence of powerful vested interests. Exaggeration about criminals? Not even.