I notice that a 2014 article on enviro impacts of offshore wind farms has been cited 184 times subsequently. A recent review is open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89537-1 Plenty to read for anyone who wants to develop their own conclusions on the subject. But the whole matter (in my view) ought to be "More gigawatts are obviously needed, so what are the least cost (including environ cost) paths to obtain them?"
Anti-science bias is complicated: Who Are You Calling Anti-Science? - Scientific American Blog Network
Empiricism is not an easy burden and often demands brutal honesty. It requires a reasonable understanding of statistics to avoid 'going down the rabbit hole.' So I'm not terribly bent out of shape to see blood-kin claims that do not match my understanding. It makes me sad but I also realize our species is barely 400 years from Galileo, 1610. That was a time of burning witches and heretics. It has taken a long time to reach what little we've achieved. To the extent we can educate our young to use empiricism and statistics, we have a hope. But never forget we are not a unique species ... yet. Bob Wilson
I suppose most of the rest of Galileo went back to CO2. From there the barest wisp may have become part of anyone here. Yes, even you.
Depends on where the data server farms are getting their electricity. But even when getting it from non-carbon sources, they are sucking it away from other customers who currently can make it up only from carbonized sources.