Washington Post Slimes Their Readers – Again

They took a picture of a shadow, and tried to pass it off to their readers as “emissions spewing”

ScreenHunter_193 Mar. 19 11.22

EPA may delay climate rules for new power plants – The Washington Post

Any cloud heavily laden with moisture appears dark when lit from the other side.  That is because it creates a shadow.

ScreenHunter_193 Mar. 19 11.27

h/t to Dave Burton

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Washington Post Slimes Their Readers – Again

  1. philjourdan says:

    They cannot go behind their paywall fast enough for me. I do not read them now. Simply a waste of time.

  2. John B., M.D. says:

    Blocked by paywall. No need to read the Washington Compost.
    I note they didn’t post a photo in the daytime of white steam (front-lit) coming from the smokestacks (yeah, along with invisible CO2 and trivial amounts of particulates, SOx, and NOx). They would have the uninformed reader to think it is all evil black pollution.

  3. daveburton says:

    Here’s what those same three stacks really look like, under normal lighting conditions:

    When I wrote to Westar Energy about the AP/WP deceptive photo of their power plant, I got back this prompt reply:

    Hello, and thanks for forwarding this information.

    We have contacted AP numerous times regarding this photo. We agree that it is a skilled photographer using lighting to create a dramatic image that reinforces the story.

    Here’s the latest that Gina Penzig, Director, Corporate Communications, sent:

    I appreciate that Charlie is a skilled photographer who used backlighting to capture a dramatic image of the plant that reinforces the emissions story and the perception that power plants are dirty. I fully acknowledge that plants are a source of emissions and the EPA work to reduce emissions has been important. We’re in the midst of spending billions of dollars to change the make up of that plume from our coal plants to almost completely steam. In fact at JEC, we’re very close. (I’d love to set up a tour and talk about what we’ve done. We’re pretty proud of it.)

    I’d like to point out that the photo is nearly four years old. I’m not asking that it be replaced with a photo that we provide. I’d challenge the photo editors to look up Jeffrey Energy Center on Google images. You will see a variety of photos from a variety of sources that show a more accurate representation of the plant and what it emits. A photographer can easily capture a plant photo from off of our property, but I’d gladly set up an escort for a photographer who would like to go onto the plant site.

    I think Westar was remarkably diplomatic & kind, considering the malicious, deliberate smear that was perpetrated against them by two of the biggest names in news: the AP and the Washington Post, and remarkably patient, considering that their letter was just the latest of “numerous” others.

    The Washington Post has just closed their Independent Ombudsman office, and terminated the position, but I wrote to their new “Reader Representative,” Doug Feaver, at readers@washpost.com, and asked:

    “Please print an apology, and appropriately discipline the responsible parties, and tell me what action you’re taking.”

    I’m not holding my breath.

  4. Andy DC says:

    Maybe Pittsburgh in the 1940’s looked something like that when they used to have killer smogs in western PA. They cleaned up those kinds of horrors a long time ago. But at least Pittsburgh produced something back then and there is something to be said for that.

  5. oeman50 says:

    Have you noticed that the term “spew” is used time and time again on most of these types of “news” stories? They are operating out of the same playbook.

  6. gator69 says:

    WTF is a ‘climate rule’, especially as it applies to power plants? They still have not proven a CO2 climate crisis, or even issue. This is pure fantasy and wishes.

  7. This kind of “emissions” propaganda has come up before, as in November 2011.

  8. Ben says:

    Ban assault clouds. If we can save just one child…

  9. Bruce says:

    Clouds of water vapour look dark when lit from the other side? Who knew? Not CAGW climate scientists who say the water vapour is like a warm blanket keeping all that evil-big-oil-CO2-heat in to fry us. Albedo? What is zis thing called albedo?

    WaPo has just proved Svensmark, only they don’t know it yet. I wonder what will happen when they go behind their paywall?

  10. Luke of the D says:

    Hey, technically they are right you know… water vapor is a so-called “greenhouse gas” by their definition. Water vapor is an “emission” in that photo… it really is correct from a certain viewpoint, although I am sure the paper is not talking about water. Ah well.

  11. Rob says:

    Coal power is a big source of actual pollution. I haven’t heard of anything debunking the 30,000 US deaths a year estimate. I’d be interested to know what the economic cost of it is that doesn’t show up in coal power bills. imo, there’s not much debate that coal should be displaced as much as possible.

    • Me says:

      How about when you people have nothing else to complain about but why you are paying higher cost for health care when you are dying of nothing all of a sudden?

      • Me says:

        Have you figured that one out yet? Just wondering err is it at that point you don’t care anymore about the rest of us peeons?

    • Me says:

      Rob, are ya being a POS or just a jackass here?

      • Me says:

        Err you haven’t figured that one out yer either?

      • Me says:

        Yet either?

      • Rob says:

        *googles POS*… ಠ___ಠ Rawr! One of the stupidest things about fully out there enviros is that they run around saying the sky is falling, say this is why we need to all drive electric cars right now, and then say nuclear is not an option. Thus ensuring that an actually troubled energy source of coal is going to keep going strong. If it’s true that the world is utterly doomed if we don’t change everything 5 years ago then hey, lets go more nuclear and at least we can be saved from a lot of coal which causes more health problems every year than nuclear ever has and ever will.

        It’s true that I do have a disagreement with this post. I think it’s a false positive of media bias. I doubt the fully upgraded plant will be comparably safe to other forms of power generation so the appearance of the fluffy white clouds may be just as deceiving as the dark ones.

      • Me says:

        Then you have been decieved and going along with the problem.

      • Me says:

        There is nothing new happening now that has not happened before with the weather or climate. Just saying to make Me point more clear.

      • daveburton says:

        That annoying “Me” name is not very original, ya know.

  12. gator69 says:

    “Coal power is a big source of actual pollution. I haven’t heard of anything debunking the 30,000 US deaths a year estimate.”

    I have never seen any verification of this claim, so there is no need to debunk it. One can claim anything one likes, and alarmists are famous for making shit up and lying with each exhalation.

    • John B., M.D. says:

      Numbers like that come from models, and we know they are only as good as the researcher and his/her ideology and their research funding.
      Similarly, I doubt the Institute of Medicine estimate that up to 98,000 patients die each year in hospitals due to preventable medical errors. That’s just a model, too, based on certain assumptions. That’s about 20 patients per hospital per year. In over 15 years, I was never aware of a patient of mine or my colleagues to die from an error. People die, yes, but when patients are between a rock and a hard place and judgement calls are made, when things turn bad, there is not always a blamable event. Luckily, the errors I’ve seen caused no serious harm. And measures are in place and constantly being revised to further reduce the error rate.
      “Life is a sexually-transmitted disease that is universally fatal.”

    • Rob says:

      Deaths from coal pollution aren’t part of the warming hysteria, in fact they don’t seem to care about it since their worldview seems to be more opposed to nuclear than coal, which is why I have a relative amount of trust in the number and I saw nothing contradicting it when I looked for maybe an hour when I first heard the stat.

      Otherwise, China has nothing to worry about from their air pollution (at least not from coal)!

      • gator69 says:

        Did you find the methodology used to produce that number? If not it is meaningless.

      • Rob says:

        well I was more looking for studies with different numbers than at the study itself – I doubt I’d be able to judge the method myself so I checked it about as much as I can for my knowledge and level of interest.

      • gator69 says:

        Rob, on this site we will usually ask for references. You are dealing with skeptics and not sheep.

  13. John B., M.D. says:

    So, if the photo is taken at night, do we call them “nocturnal emissions?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s