Washington Post’s photo phraud – it’s deja vu all over again

Junkscience.com reports this is what the print copy looks like today for this article by Eugene Robinson. Note what looks like black unfiltered pollutants spewing skyward:

WaPo Photo Fraud

But when you look at the original photo, you notice something different:

NEPA_banner_leadart[1]

The caption reads:

Silhouetted against the sky at dusk, excess steam, along with non-scrubbed pollutants, spew from the smokestacks at Westar Energy’s Jeffrey Energy Center coal-fired power plant near St. Marys, Kansas. AP Photo/Charlie Riedel

Here is what the stacks look like in broad daylight – steam:

Inline image 3

Apparently, WaPo hasn’t learned a damn thing since  we last called them out for using this very same photo and had readers send complaints to their omubudsman. See:

The Washington Post Eilperin emissions trick

About these ads

76 thoughts on “Washington Post’s photo phraud – it’s deja vu all over again

  1. Just remember – the Washington Post is the official propagandist for the liberal establishment.
    Don’t expect journalistic ethics from a group of clowns who aren’t journalists and have no ethics.

  2. I saw a demonstration of that effect in Imperial Valley. Heading east pre-dawn, I saw what looked like a lot of smoke coming from a waste treatment plant. Once I got up to it (you can see for miles in the desert), it disappeared – it was just steam in the early morning silhouetted against a lightening sky.

  3. They could save a bunch on ink (printing large, dark areas runs my ink carts down quickly), too, if they were just ‘trvthful’ …

  4. Closely looking at the photo just published one CAN see that it’s steam, or at least very possibly is steam…but…the dark presentation doesn’t make this readily apparent. ….so….Wash Post will likely say the photo is a reasonable image and any interpretations by readers are their own fault…

  5. Meet the…”New Chu….same as the Old Chu” ! ! !

    The Senate, by a 97-0 unanimous vote confirmed MIT professor Ernest Moniz as Secretary of Energy who promotes the AGW meme, saying ‘debate is not an option’. Yesterday, the Poser-in-Chief teleprompter message de jour was that….”the internet is the new terrorism”….henceforth, enjoy your ‘debate’ in private.

  6. No surprise that el WaPo is trimming the truth.

    Not much honesty comes from DC anymore. Just cover ups, obfuscations and diversions.
    Makes this vet rather depressed this Memorial Day.

  7. To compound the errors the caption says that the emissions are unscrubbed but according to the EPA Clean Air Markets Division Air Markets Program Database all three units at the Jeffrey Energy Center have “wet limestone” for SO2 control and “Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Closed-coupled/Separated OFA for NOX control. The 2012 station emission rates were for SO2 is 0.02 lbs SO2 per mmBtu and for NOX 0.13 lbs NOX per mmBtu. The implication that these are “dirty” stacks is completely wrong.

  8. The same crap is spewed forth on a daily basis by NPR.

    The political scientists fight tooth and nail to preserve NPR and PBS because they realize both provide a direct, unfiltered broadcast propaganda channel to their political base.

  9. I do not understand an industry can call itself ‘green’ when that industry:
    == cuts down vast numbers of trees,
    == uses energy and water supplies to turn those trees into pulp then paper,
    == uses more energy and chemicals to print their output onto that paper
    == uses yet more energy to distribute the printed paper to its readers countrywide

    Surely these dinosaurs of the information age should just have an environmentally friendly electronic copy for access.

    The energy they are wasting comes from the very power generation plants that they are demonizing.

    How hypocritical can you get?

  10. To be honest, these people don’t know that CO2 is odorless (except in very high concentrations) and colorless. Collectively, they are what Lenin called “useful idiots.”

    Any climatologist, climate scientist, chemist, etc., should know CO2 is colorless. How many will step forward to correct the record? Who will call out this deliberately misleading photo?

  11. Silhouetted against the sky at dusk, excess steam, along with non-scrubbed pollutants, spew from the smokestacks at Westar Energy’s Jeffrey Energy Center coal-fired power plant near St. Marys, Kansas. AP Photo/Charlie Riedel

    That seems to be an accurate description of what’s shown.
    The non-scrubbed pollutants would be 5% of the sulfur and 75% of the mercury and ~80% of the particulate matter. The mercury levels in that coal are about 0.07ppm and about 10,000,000 tonnes of coal are burned there per year so that’s about half a tonne of mercury emissions pa. Total sulfur is about 0.3% so that’s 30,000x.05=1500 tonnes Sulfur emissions pa.

  12. “more soylent green! says:

    May 24, 2013 at 7:43 am”

    As is water vapour. Steam however can, in the right propagandist light, look like these pictures.

  13. Other than the date at the top of the paper, what else has the Washington Post ever printed that was truthful? They lost all credibility a long time ago.

  14. Forget the pic, the op-ed is atrocious.

    ”For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no “great amount of uncertainty” about whether the planet is warming or why.”

    For the record and umpteen thousandth time, there is no “great amount of uncertainty” about whether the planet warmed and that we understand a mechanism by which anthropogenic influences may have played a role; the great amount of uncertainty is the significance level of the anthropogenic influence and the resulting consequences if any.

    For the record, and for the umpteen hundredth time, there is no “great amount of uncertainty” about whether the planet is warming, it hasn’t been for the last decade and a half.

  15. John West says:
    May 24, 2013 at 8:05 am
    “Forget the pic, the op-ed is atrocious.

    ”For the record, and for the umpteenth time, there is no “great amount of uncertainty” about whether the planet is warming or why.””

    Well but of course there is – HADCRUT just came out with a new version; obviously the IPCC warmists are deeply convinced they haven’t gotten the temperature history right yet. I would call that uncertainty. If they were certain, they could call it a day and stop rewriting the temperature history. Same for GISS or NCDC of course.

  16. Of course the only pollutants which are in the picture are those which are unscrubbed. The scrubbed materials are the ones which have been trapped inside, so by definition the tiny amount which escapes was not scrubbed. But they had to get mentioned, while ly

  17. Ian W says:

    May 24, 2013 at 7:43 am

    How hypocritical can you get?

    ===================================
    File that question under “Don’t encourage them.” They are obviously aware of the truth and have are determined to distort it. So then, they just don’t care about anything but getting their way. They can and will do anything.

  18. In the UK, our Clean Air Act prohibits gas, coal & oil boilers from discharging ‘visible particulates’.

    Strangely, BioMass boilers are allowed a waiver to allow them to discharge ‘visible particulates’.

  19. The op Ed is as wrong as the picture. But remember this is the Washington Post, in Washington. Where truth does not matter, only politics does.

  20. Actually that’s water vapor. Steam is the gaseous form of water and is invisible. Moot point though.

  21. Phil. says:
    May 24, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I’m sure you will be aware that there is mercury in wood. Biomass burning only differs from coal burning in respect of when the plant matter took up the mercury. What’s the difference between mercury that was taken up 300M years ago and mercury taken up 50 years ago?

    Same applies to sulfur. Domestic biomass burning does not scrub sulfur.

  22. A good family friend grew up in LA in the 30′s. He had great stories about the beaches, orange groves and idyllic life back then. But he also told stories about the smog. It was seasonal and also based on time of day. He said a lot of the volitiles in the smog were quite natural because all over the LA basin there was off gassing of petroleum and tar that had come to the surface over centuries if not milleniums. This preceeded most of the bad traffic and smog producing power and manufacturing. Smog was a natural part of the area.

  23. The Washington Post is bird cage liner and Eugene Robinson is the most partisan hack you will ever read.

  24. Billy Liar says:
    May 24, 2013 at 9:20 am

    Phil. says:
    May 24, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I’m sure you will be aware that there is mercury in wood. Biomass burning only differs from coal burning in respect of when the plant matter took up the mercury. What’s the difference between mercury that was taken up 300M years ago and mercury taken up 50 years ago?

    Same applies to sulfur. Domestic biomass burning does not scrub sulfur.

    So what? We’re discussing what’s in the effluent stream from those smokestacks not what might be in domestic biomass effluent!

  25. Well… no offense but just because we only see steam and nothing else it doesn’t mean that “non-scrubbed pollutants” don’t spew from those smokestacks.

  26. Sergiu Z says:

    “…just because we only see steam and nothing else it doesn’t mean that ‘non-scrubbed pollutants’ don’t spew from those smokestacks.”

    So why don’t you tell us what it does mean? No more ‘what-ifs’. Quantify those “non-scrubbed pollutants” for us. Show us exactly what you’re arm-waving about.

    The alarmist crowd is always trying to force scientific skeptics to prove a negative like this. The reason is simple: they have lost the basic argument, so they resort to logical fallacies.

  27. dbstealey says:
    May 24, 2013 at 10:55 am
    Sergiu Z says:

    “…just because we only see steam and nothing else it doesn’t mean that ‘non-scrubbed pollutants’ don’t spew from those smokestacks.”

    So why don’t you tell us what it does mean? No more ‘what-ifs’. Quantify those “non-scrubbed pollutants” for us. Show us exactly what you’re arm-waving about.

    Already done in post above at: May 24, 2013 at 7:48 am

  28. No pollution control technology is 100% effective. Ofcourse there are non-scrubbed pollutants eminating from almost every smoke stake. But everything you are looking at in the photograph is water vapor. The non-scrubbed pollutants are too small to be visable.

  29. Dear EW3,

    Indeed, watching the willful destruction of the freedom secured by the Constitution you so valiantly promised to defend and protect must make you sad. I’m so sorry. Of all the people in our land who deserve to stand tall with hope in their hearts and a look of pardonable pride on their faces on Memorial Day, it is our veterans.

    Thank you, so much.

    Forever grateful,

    Janice
    (thanks to you, I grew up in a land of freedom)

    P.S. John Wayne was an old man by the time I was born. I was one of those little kids about whom he probably wondered whether any of us would care about our wonderful country at all by the time we grew up. Well, I do. I love America so much I would die for her, if I had the opportunity. America and its freedom will outlive the twisted puppet in the Whitehouse. The truth is marching on. You did not serve in vain, Mr. EW. In the hearts of millions of us, young and old, love of liberty and of our country burns brightly. America lives!

    This is for you, EW:

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=john+wayne+patriotic+video&view=detail&mid=4F5376C39E9AFAE45EF34F5376C39E9AFAE45EF3&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

    God, bless America.

  30. Why would promoters of ‘climate change’ start using truth or facts to support their cause?

  31. Peter says:
    May 24, 2013 at 9:00 am
    “Actually that’s water vapor. Steam is the gaseous form of water and is invisible. Moot point though.”

    I fear you have it the wrong way round.

  32. The camera can lie. If you shoot the steam with the sun behind your back, it appears light, BUT move to the other side, where the steam is back lit and it appears a lot darker and that’s the propaganda shot they’ll want to use.

  33. @phil -

    Please inform us where you got those numbers from. If they are not specifically from that plant, they are bogus.

    Every large plant in the USA that emits Volatile Organic Compounds OR heavy metals must have a scrubber or oxidizer (incinerator) on any and all stacks. This has been laws since the early 1970s and the plants were given time to meet the standards set then and revised from time to time. Each new plant had to meet the standards from day one.

    American industry spent hundreds of billions of dollars to meet the standards, and industry has met them well. It is disengenuous to pretend that American industry has not done everything in its power to meet the standards set by Congress. As a general overall review a comparison of the air in any US city in 1960 and 2010 will attest to that.

    If the scrubbers and oxidizers are not doing a perfect job (but they are damned close), what is the green remedy? To shut down all our power plants just because they don’t meet your 0.000% VOC and heavy metal standard? Which is not what is required by law?

    Do you want to be the one who pushes the button to shut all those plants down? And then to explain to freezing kids and starving kids why they are dying? And why all the operating rooms have no lights?

    People today who didn’t live before 1970 have no idea what real pollution is.

    REAL POLLUTION:
    At this link is a photo of China in 2009: http://www.chinahush.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091020luguang10.jpg

    And these of Pittsburgh in the 1930s and 1940s (respectively):

    You people think a mouse is an elephant.

    If you want to deal with pollution in the 2010s, you need to go talk to the government in China and India. If you aren’t willing to do that, stfu. The west has cleaned up our air to a fabulous degree. Go talk to Mao’s successors, if you have the nads to do it.

    Steve Garcia

  34. Phil at 7:48 said:
    That seems to be an accurate description of what’s shown.
    The non-scrubbed pollutants would be 5% of the sulfur and 75% of the mercury and ~80% of the particulate matter. The mercury levels in that coal are about 0.07ppm and about 10,000,000 tonnes of coal are burned there per year so that’s about half a tonne of mercury emissions pa. Total sulfur is about 0.3% so that’s 30,000x.05=1500 tonnes Sulfur emissions pa.

    The point that the caption and you missed is that those stacks are scrubbed which explains why you see steam plumes. The EPA Clean Air Markets Division Air Markets Program Database shows that all three units at the Jeffrey Energy Center have “wet limestone” for SO2 control and “Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Closed-coupled/Separated OFA for NOX control. The 2012 station emission rates were for SO2 is 0.02 lbs SO2 per mmBtu and 1300 tons and for NOX 0.13 lbs NOX per mmBtu and 8787 tons. Wet scrubbing also removes mercury so your emission estimate for the facility is far too high. Finally the suggestion that 80% of the particulate emissions are released is absurd. All three units there have electrostatic precipitator controls and I would expect control levels of at least 95% meaning that only 5% of the particulates are emitted and assuming that the scrubber does not control particulates. Describing these “dirty” stacks as spewing pollutants because of the visible plume is simply wrong.

    Even a “dirty” power plant that could arguably be “spewing” pollutants may not show a dirty plume. For example, Homer City power plant in 1998 emitted 168,550 tons of SO2 and I would not argue the point their stacks “spewed” pollutants. A picture of those stacks during that year would probably not show a plume because there are opacity standards that limit the opaqueness of the plume to less than 20%. Particulate control is relatively inexpensive and generally prevents opaque plumes. It is only when there is a scrubber adding moisture that you get the visible plumes.

  35. “Looks like Phil’s trolling again.”

    As usual. His own blog gets no traffic, so he comes here.

  36. “So what? We’re discussing what’s in the effluent stream from those smokestacks not what might be in domestic biomass effluent!” Ahhhhh,yes. I see phil trying to obfuscate,again. Doncha all KNOW that mercury,sulfer,carbon,etc are DIFFERENT in biomass,then in anything else? (mostly due to the extra-ordinary amount of grants,subsidies,etc).
    Go back to beeyotchin about farmers, phil. BTW…when are you going to practice what you preach?(rhetorical)

  37. The Big Oil funded d-word industry would like you to believe it’s “just steam”, but we know it’s actually the deadly dihydrogen monoxide!

  38. “… deadly dihydrogen monoxide!” [frank Frank Kotler] Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaa!

  39. Hey, D. B. Stealey, I forgot to mention above, that John Wayne video (link in 11:50 post) is for you, too. (if there are other vets here, pipe up! — in the meantime, THANK YOU, SO MUCH!)

    Thank you so much for protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America!

  40. rogercaiazza says:
    May 24, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Phil at 7:48 said:
    “That seems to be an accurate description of what’s shown.
    The non-scrubbed pollutants would be 5% of the sulfur and 75% of the mercury and ~80% of the particulate matter. The mercury levels in that coal are about 0.07ppm and about 10,000,000 tonnes of coal are burned there per year so that’s about half a tonne of mercury emissions pa. Total sulfur is about 0.3% so that’s 30,000x.05=1500 tonnes Sulfur emissions pa.”

    The point that the caption and you missed is that those stacks are scrubbed which explains why you see steam plumes.

    Didn’t miss it at all, that’s why I quoted the efficiencies of the scrubbers in my post!

    The EPA Clean Air Markets Division Air Markets Program Database shows that all three units at the Jeffrey Energy Center have “wet limestone” for SO2 control and “Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Closed-coupled/Separated OFA for NOX control. The 2012 station emission rates were for SO2 is 0.02 lbs SO2 per mmBtu and 1300 tons and for NOX 0.13 lbs NOX per mmBtu and 8787 tons. Wet scrubbing also removes mercury so your emission estimate for the facility is far too high.

    As I said the scrubbers remove about 25% of the Mercury and I accounted for that in my estimate.

    Finally the suggestion that 80% of the particulate emissions are released is absurd. All three units there have electrostatic precipitator controls and I would expect control levels of at least 95% meaning that only 5% of the particulates are emitted and assuming that the scrubber does not control particulates.

    Take it up with Westar energy, it’s their data.

  41. Justthinkin says:
    May 24, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    “So what? We’re discussing what’s in the effluent stream from those smokestacks not what might be in domestic biomass effluent!” Ahhhhh,yes. I see phil trying to obfuscate,again. Doncha all KNOW that mercury,sulfer,carbon,etc are DIFFERENT in biomass,then in anything else? (mostly due to the extra-ordinary amount of grants,subsidies,etc).
    Go back to beeyotchin about farmers, phil. BTW…when are you going to practice what you preach?(rhetorical)

    Why on earth are you babbling about biomass and farming for? Billy Liar mentioned biomass for no obvious reason take it up with him. As to farmers I don’t ever recall mentioning them.

  42. dbstealey says:
    May 24, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    “Looks like Phil’s trolling again.”

    As usual. His own blog gets no traffic, so he comes here.

    Which blog’s that? Your question’s been answered, was there any point to it or was it just more of your trolling?

  43. Chill, Phil. Just because the planet is falsifying your belief system is no reason to get snippy.☺

  44. Phil — at 7:48 am

    Ok, you gives us a bunch of figures but you don’t tell us your source for those figures. Greens exaggerate almost always. Tell us your source.

    Phil there is no free lunch in this world. The good that comes from that plant far out-weighs the small amount of pollution that comes out of it stacks. And we are just starting to discover the hidden pollution costs of green alternatives.

    Arguing with Greens is like trying to tell a paranoid schizo that the world is not the way he conceives it to be. Greens and schizos are out of touch with reality and unfortunately for us they are usually very self-satisfied people.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  45. Thank you Janice,
    It brought tears to my eyes to watch the video.
    Sadly not many people understand that kind of pride.
    The country is very different then when I grew up. And as I get old enough to hand the country of the next generation, I feel I am handing off a lot less then the WWII generation gave to us.
    God Bless You.
    Allan

  46. Barbee says:
    WAPO thinks it’s readers are stupid.
    Now let’s wait and see if they’re wrong.

    Barbee, just read the comments in articles in the WaPoo.
    These are supposed to be “smart” people. But they are almost rabid.

  47. Do it your self with freeware like Gimp, using the color tools. It takes slightly more time to cut and paste a polar bear on a ice floe. With high quality you will get art. However, that takes time and alarmists are always in a hurry.

  48. phil…you never mentioned farmers here,but yu sure have tried to make them out as scarey on other sites.See,the problem is,you have a MO,and it easy to tell.Like NEVER posting links for your numbers,no matter what they are for. So please,just one linky???

  49. Justthinkin says:
    May 25, 2013 at 1:43 am
    phil…you never mentioned farmers here,but yu sure have tried to make them out as scarey on other sites.See,the problem is,you have a MO,and it easy to tell.Like NEVER posting links for your numbers,no matter what they are for. So please,just one linky???

    I don’t post anywhere about farmers so I think you are confused, and I do post links for my numbers, in this case i said that I used Westar Energy’s own data and given the name of the plant it’s easy enough to find on Google.

  50. EW3 says:
    May 24, 2013 at 10:04 pm
    Thank you Janice,
    It brought tears to my eyes to watch the video.
    Sadly not many people understand that kind of pride.
    The country is very different then when I grew up. And as I get old enough to hand the country of the next generation, I feel I am handing off a lot less then the WWII generation gave to us.

    I’d find it more convincing if it were made by one of his contemporaries who did serve for his country like Jimmy Stewart (bomber pilot in europe, 2 DFCs, Croix de guerre, Air medal with three oak leaf clusters).

  51. Breaking down the individual toxins that come out of a smokestack is nonsense. I guarantee I’m exposed to more of these when I light a fire in my fireplace than I would if I lived downwind from a coal fired power plant.

    As an example of why it’s nonsense, I’d like to introduce you to a very toxic item that you likely encounter on a regular basis. It contains, as a partial list (out of 371 identified toxins):

    Phytic Acid ( 52,700 ppm; a preservative with E number E391), Xanthotoxin (300 ppb; a drug with the trade name Oxsoralen), Oxalic Acid (56 ppm, a pesticide used to treat bee hives, fatal in humans at 71mg/kg), Methylamine (3,970 ppm, an industrial solvent and DEA controlled substance), and so on.

    That item is a carrot.

  52. All of this begs the question. If the pollutants are so bad then shut the plants down. Do it!! Shut down every coal fired power plant today! If not then why not? The reason is simple because we don’t have an alternative. Yes there is NG but in general not where these coal fired plants are. Someone will say there are the alternative power solutions. Bwahahaha! Show me one alternative that doesn’t require HUGE amounts of conventional fossil fueled power to create and that are real viable replacements for fossil fuels… they don’t exist. So the bottom line is we have already achieved the 80% or so pollution controls that are practical and affordable and demands for that last percentage of pollution control are thinly disguised demands to eliminate fossil fuel with no viable alternatives. This demand is disguised because it is essentially asking the citizens to commit economic suicide. This entire arguement about fossil fuels and alternatives is full of intentional dishonesty. That is the problem and the barrier to solutions.

  53. “and I do post links for my numbers, in this case i said that I used Westar Energy’s own data”

    My my,we are confuzzed,phil.Asking me to google is NOT posting a link. Your cognitive disonance is showing,not that that is a surprise.

  54. Phil. says:
    May 24, 2013 at 7:48 am
    The mercury levels in that coal are about 0.07ppm and about 10,000,000 tonnes of coal are burned there per year so that’s about half a tonne of mercury emissions pa. Total sulfur is about 0.3% so that’s 30,000x.05=1500 tonnes Sulfur emissions pa.
    ============
    The problem is that people have been told something that is quite untrue. We have been told that substances are either poisonous or not poisonous. This is a huge lie. The substance itself does not make it dangerous. It is the combination of the substance and the dosage that makes it dangerous.

    The most likely effect of eliminating harmful substances is to make our bodies super sensitive to these materials. While it is true that some substances are cumulative, and small doses cannot increase the protection against larger doses, by and large most materials do not work this way. In general the human body is adapted to take advantage of small doses of harmful materials to build a resistance to larger doses.

    In general, large dosages of normally beneficial materials such as food and water are toxic. And small doses of normally harmful materials are either harmless or beneficial. We live in a sea or radiation, yet it does not kill us. Eating dirt as children appears to give immunity against many modern diseases. Mithridatism and vaccination both rely on controlled dosages of small amounts of normally harmful materials to confer protection against larger doses.

    Should we ban children from eating dirt? Like coal, dirt also it contains 0.07ppm of mercury. Should we ban mercury from medicine? One might just as well argue that since viruses are toxic, we should also ban them from medicine. Yet without the use of viruses in medicine, we would still have 50% of all children dying before their 5th birthday.

  55. Dear Allan,

    You are welcome.

    Gratefully,

    Janice

    – Wonderful, isn’t it? One need never have served in the U. S. Armed forces to love one’s country. ALL of us Americans with minds and hearts healthy enough to remember and to comprehend what America stands for love our country. We don’t need any convincing. We just do.

  56. Resoundingly fine riposte (to the anti-”CHEMICAL” and “Help is, there are toxins in there!” nuts), Code Tech.

    Those are the same ignoramuses who believe with all their heart that “organic” fruits and vegetables have a different biochemical composition than produce from farms where CHEMICALS were used for fertilizer instead of steer manure (which is, of course, TOTALLY toxin-free, LOL).

    Just try to explain to them that the reason the Farmers Market produce tastes fresher is because it is fresher (not due to being “organic”) and they get a fixed, self-satisfied, grin, their eyes glaze over slightly, and they respond, “Well, you can just tell,” and quickly walk away before you can say another word.

  57. “If Congress sticks to its obstruction and willful ignorance, Obama should use his executive powers to the fullest extent….Now the president should direct the Environmental Protection Agency to complete work on a rule governing emissions from new power plants….”

    In this Eugene Robinson is correct. If the President uses the EPA to regulate, mandate, and fine Americans for CO2 from energy generation, and methane from cattle and crops, he will be undercutting Congress, States, and citizens and using his “executive powers to the fullest extent.” That is accurate. “Obama will have to go it alone.” “Alone” is a very good term for the situation he will be in.

  58. I took the actual photo of the Kansas power plant from your web site, and used the well-known graphics program, Gimp, to invert it. The resultant image looks very similar to the Washington Post “photo”! My suspicion is that the Washington Post image is not “excess steam, along with non-scrubbed pollutants”, but a digitally manipulated image, designed to mislead — not to inform.

  59. The article was written by Eugene Robinson… not to worry, the man truly is an idiot. Just listen to him on CNN from time to time when he is part of one of their ‘panel discussions’ it will become quickly evident to anybody that the man has no credibility.

    Incidentally, I have been at this power plant on numerous occasions as I do some consulting work for them. It is a very diligently run operation, has a great pollution control system and has one of the finest and most dedicated group of people that I’ve ever had the pleasure of working with.

  60. Wonderful work! That is the type of information that should
    be shared across the internet. Shame on Google for now not positioning this post upper!

    Come on over and seek advice from my site . Thank you =)

  61. I have visited parks run by green loving environmentalists. Worst kind of polution habits I have ever seen when I walked thru the village where these workers lived.

  62. As I remember National Geographic did the same sort of thing about the Alberta oilsands. A hatchet job. Put me right off that magazine. What else do they lie about?

  63. Thanks, Peter Westmore, for your experiment. I also did it and obtained the result within a minute (see my comment above). Perhaps we do need a new verb, in the sense that a photograph has been gimped. Could experts discover that colors are inverted?

  64. But…but steam is water vapor which is a worse greenhouse gas then CO2. OOOOOH NOOOOO!

Comments are closed.