Dave Burton, via his Facebook page writes:
The Washington Post’s caption says “…emissions spew from the smokestacks at… coal-fired power plant…”
Do you want to know what propaganda looks like?
Take glance at this article from the Washington Post. The photo at the top is purest propaganda, blatantly and deliberately deceiving readers and smearing a private company:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-may-delay-climate-rules-for-new-power-plants/2013/03/15/28e9d37e-8cda-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html
Here’s the letter I wrote to the Washington Post’s “Reader Representative” (now that they’ve terminated their longstanding Ombudsman position):
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Ltr_to_Washington_Post-propaganda_not_emissions_spewing.htm
| From: David Burton |
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:21 PM |
|
To: “Doug Feaver, Washington Post Reader Representative” <readers@washpost.com>
|
|
Dear Mr. Feaver,
Now that there’s no Ombudsman at the Washington Post, do the reporters and editors think truth doesn’t matter?
Here’s a March 15 story by the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin:
This is the lead photo, of Westar Energy’s Jeffrey Energy Center “spewing emissions” from coal:
Charlie Riedel/AP – Silhouetted against the sky at dusk, emissions spew from the smokestacks at Westar Energy’s Jeffrey Energy Center coal-fired power plant near St. Mary’s, Kan.
And what do you suppose those black, deadly-looking plumes of “emissions” really are?
Condensing steam, that’s what. Just plain water.
Plumes of condensing water vapor normally look white and benign, but by artfully choosing a vantage point to the east of the plant, and a time just after sunset, AP photographer Charlie Riedel managed to make the pretty white plumes look black and threatening.
That power plant has state-of-the-art “scrubbers,” which which cost over $400 million, and which remove 95% of the SO2 and nearly all of the particulate matter. Almost nothing visible is left except steam. Here’s what those same stacks really look like, under normal lighting conditions:
You’ve got to grudgingly admire the AP / Washington Post’s mastery of the propaganda craft.
I sent an email similar to the above to Westar Energy, and got back the following reply:
———- Begin forwarded message ———-
Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Washington Post / AP propaganda photo – “emissions spew” from power plant
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.
Thank you again for sharing the information with us!
Communications Representative
———- End forwarded message ———-
What shameful, shameful misbehavior by the Washington Post!
Please print an apology, and appropriately discipline the responsible parties, and tell me what action you’re taking.
Dave
|
|
EPA likely to delay climate rules for new power plants
www.washingtonpost.com
Move could bolster agency’s legal case, but worries environmentalists.
Like this:
Like Loading...
“Careful not step on Wapo.”
Ohhh, but that is water vapour pouring from those stacks. Water vapour is ten times more potent as a greenhouse gas, than CO2. Yikes!!
Close this power station down immediately. We all want to go back to the good old Middle Ages, when everything was Green and wonderful.
Hey, its bl**dy cold in here, who turned the electricity off? Hey, open that power station again, I’m freezing….
/sarc
.
Well I recently did some work for an examinations board and all the science papers had climate change questions in them and to let the kids know what they meant they all had photos of cooling towers. So what’s new?
.
Prof Mackay, a UK government advisor on renewable energy, did something similar. He wrote a paper saying that electric vehicles were five times more efficient than fossil fueled cars.
What the disingenuous professor had done, of course, is to ignore all the inefficiencies involved in creating electricity from fossil fuels and transmitting it to the vihicle. But when such disingenuous advice like this is going direct to brain-dead government ministers, who suck up green propaganda like this like blotting paper, it is more like fraud.
.
bill said:
March 20, 2013 at 9:20 am
Amazing that these people will exaggerate to the point that they’re thought to be shameless liars. It would be interesting to find out what religion and political party they are.
————————————————————
They are warmunists; their religion and political party are the same thing: extreme leftism.
@wwschmidt & four-of-them
I was going to say exactly the same thing as MattS. Of course if you switch to the opposite colours of black and sepia they will come out as white and blue but that doesn’t mean that that is what they were originally.
Shoot any similar chimney against the sky near a sunset and you will get a broadly similar image. The dishonesty is not with the photographer unless they misrepresented the image.
Ben Wilson @9:36 am
During the lead in to the Spanish American War, in 1898, legend has it William Randolph Hearst sent an illustrator to cover a revolution in Cuba. The illustrator cabled Hearst and told him there wasn’t any revolution. Hearst is said to have told him ‘You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.’.
So apparently what is happening today with the main stream media is nothing new.
Just cut of electical power to the Washington Post. That might get their attention!
My advice to Westar: Sue the WhitewashPost for enough to put them out of business.
legaltrex2013 wrote on March 20, 2013 at 9:58 am, “Did you know with the help Government subsidies Germany is the leader in solar power accounting for over 30 percent of their residential energy.”
Germany is, indeed, the country most heavily invested in Wind and PV (solar panel) electric generation. But they aren’t getting 30% of their electricity from solar. In 2012 it was only about 5%.
I recently posted the following comment on a blog site about their dismal Wind Power results:
Nuclear capacity factors are typically around 90%, but [based on this report] the German nation-wide average wind capacity factor for 2012 was apparently just under 17.5% [45867 GWh/yr / (29.9 GW * 24 * 366) = 0.1746]. I.e., actual generated power was 17.5% of nameplate capacity, despite the fact that a lot of their windmills are pretty new, and electricity prices there are so extraordinarily high there (thanks to the “green” politics) that there’s a strong incentive to keep the turbines well-maintained and running. Where electricity prices are lower, that incentive fades. I expect wind to blow, but that really sucks.
And, believe it or not, PV (solar panels) fared even worse. Even when you adjust for the fact that a lot of the German solar panels are new, and were only online for part of the year, the average German PV capacity factor in 2012 was just 10.5%.
“which remove 95% of the SO2 and nearly all of the particulate matter. ”
Ignore those reductions in real pollutants thanks to advancing technology. We just can’t have CO2 released and our Ministry of Truth will tell you what is real. Deceptive is the polite term.
Here is the page from Google Images “CO2 pollution”
https://www.google.ca/search?q=about:blank&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&redir_esc=&ei=8PlJUaKWFITZigKpy4GwAQ&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=798&sei=-vlJUeWiCoHOiwKH7oHwAQ#um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA%3AIE-SearchBox&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=co2+pollution&oq=co2+pollution&gs_l=img.12..0j0i24l6.4537.11770.0.18041.23.15.0.3.3.3.87.804.14.14.0…0.0…1c.1.7.img.Sv_AYFli5YQ&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.cGE&fp=dc8b2029bf2e2b45&biw=1440&bih=798
Which is why every time a reporter is laid off, an angel gets his wings.
AP = Agenda Pushers
Don’t see anything resembling journalism…
Woops! Link does not work.
Just go to Google images and enter the search term “CO2 pollution”. Miracolo!! The “Invisible Gas” is made visible! Hundreds of images…all bad, as bad as you want..in any which way you want.
It is indeed propaganda, but then again, it serves their advocacy position. Another subliminal trick is to show a cooling tower backlit. The viewer sees the “pollution” (which truly is 100% H2O plus many believe it’s a nuclear plant…the best of all deceptions!!!
Any industrial plant like the photo that spewed exhaust from its stack actually like the portrayal would be shut down instantly by federal, state and local clean air authorities. Pollution abatement techniques have been in place for decades that truly make the air clean. You can’t get a dirty plume like the photo unless there is pollution control equipment failures.
Remember too, CO2 is an orderless, colorless gas. What is shown in the photo is mostly water vapor presented in a tricked up lighting.
The way to get the message across to The Washington Post is clearly give them the impression that people have caught on. Once a liar is a known liar, his attitude about lying changes a lot.
Photographic technique for dramatic, sinister effects – Yes.
Photographic documentation of pollution – No.
MtK
@Dave Burton; it’s not propaganda, it is agitprop, plain and simple.
The greenies have ensured there are unsustainable amounts of seals living on the shores of eastern Canada, which have destroyed the huge fish populations which once used to live there.
The harp seal population has grown almost 700% to 8 million over the past 30 years – see official Canadian government figures:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=seal%20populations%20eastern%20canada&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfo-mpo.gc.ca%2Ffm-gp%2Fseal-phoque%2Freports-rapports%2Ffacts-faits%2Ffacts-faits2012a-eng.htm&ei=nf1JUZTeMsOnO_WGgeAI&usg=AFQjCNHg8IwomyaeyjuYfud2qoECxHwsLw
However, in the area of Hudson Bay, which is the subject of this study, the ringed seal is dominant. Unlike other seal populations, this one is declining and is subject to occasional catastrophic decline – almost amusingly, this seems to occur in years when there is an abnormal amount of winter ice. I would suggest polar bear health is all about the relative size of seal populations and has almost nothing to do with supposed climate change:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=seal%20populations%20hudson%20bay&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfo-mpo.gc.ca%2FLibrary%2F336456.pdf&ei=k_5JUabeJ4LUOPi-gaAC&usg=AFQjCNEC4ftT6OytgH34Dnw7DHN-uOCFNg
The mainstream media continues to struggle financially with the loss of readers and advertising. They do not understand that they are the architects of their own decline, it is their own dishonest reporting that has driven the explosion in blogging and the other alternative news sources to whom they are losing market-share.
wwschmidt says:
“they’ll print it on page 24”. (first post 9.05 am)
Do they still have that many pages?
If you search Google images for “Jeffrey Energy Center” the first image is another of Riedel’s – a little more steamy but certainly “scary” enough to fool the average person. What both images have in common is that they are cropped to ensure nobody can see the end/edge of the emissions. A lot more people will recognize the emissions as steam if they see the edges where the steam disappears in a way that smoke will not.
Sean says:
March 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Sean is correct, and we can all do something by refusing to purchase their products, and encouraging our friends and contacts to do the same. If someone says they read something in the New York Times or Washington Post, I would challenge them on its veracity, and ask them why they are throwing away their hard-earned money on crap. They may not like that response, but it will make them think twice about the sources of their news. And by most polling, new reporters have about as much trustworthiness as used car salesmen (and certain climate scientists).