Below is how The Hill positioned its report about a recent court ruling involving the Trump EPA’s bid to rein in the Obama EPA’s (junk science-fueled) ozone rule.
But guess what? The urban skyline (and air pollution) pictured is not from anywhere in America. It’s a stock Getty image of the Mexico City skyline:
You can see that The Hill paid $575 to pull this photo fraud on unsuspecting readers.
What’s the term? Oh yeah… ‘Fake News.’
It’s very interesting that they will rave about and photo shop things like this while totally ignoring the enormous smoke coverage from wild fires in our dirty un-managed, (pristine) forests. The map day before yesterday shows smoke covering most of the US and Canada. When Yellowstone had wildfires in the late 90’s forcing people from their homes in MT and WY and causing health problems for those with COPD, I remember the Denver op ed praising the Wonderful!! wonderful!! wonderful!! wildfires!!”
The Hill = Bandini Mountain
Science, as reported, on the climate issue is really not science at all. It is cherry picked examples to support a political viewpoint. From many scientific points of view, global warming is a good thing.
The Hill : Proudly following W. R. Hearst’s philosophy of journalistic integrity – “You get me the pictures, I’ll get you the war!”
Hmmmm. The Hill needs to be exposed like Politico as a Democratic Party propaganda point.
The Hill behaves this way on many occasions. They frequently display photographs of condensing moisture plumes that are taken from the down-sun side of the stack. The result is a black-looking plume, that is black because no sunlight penetrates the water droplet plume. They post these photos above articles about pollution, without ever claiming that the photo is a picture of pollution, but never admitting that it is not.
When the article is about carbon dioxide emissions, the photos are taken from the up-sun side so that the plume is pure white. This plays to the bias that most folks have that carbon dioxide plumes are white because they have seen the white smoke coming off of a piece of dry ice and do not realize that the white appearance is because of condensed water vapor. One such photo was of a plume from a hyperbolic cooling tower at a nuclear power plant. The Hill does this so frequently that I cannot believe that it is accidental.
The Hill behaves this way on many occasions. They frequently display photographs of condensing moisture plumes that are taken from the down-sun side of the stack. The result is a black-looking plume, that is black because no sunlight penetrates the water droplet plume. They post these photos above articles about pollution, without ever claiming that the photo is a picture of pollution, but never admitting that it is not.
When the article is about carbon dioxide emissions, the photos are taken from the up-sun side so that the plume is pure white. This plays to the bias that most folks have that carbon dioxide plumes are white because they have seen the white smoke coming off of a piece of dry ice and do not realize that the white appearance is because of condensed water vapor. One such photo was of a plume from a hyperbolic cooling tower at a nuclear power plant. The Hill does this so frequently that I cannot believe that it is accidental.
Seems Steve’s revelation compelled The Hill to “update” their story with a different image (nice detective work btw). While the new image could support the implicit message of doom and gloom in the article, it also looks like many urban skylines on a partly cloudy day in the late afternoon, with abundant wildlife in the foreground. what a joke….
Ever notice how they will have a cow over something like this, while they totally ignore the drug epidemic and over dose deaths. things that are real threats.
What air pollution would look like if we had air pollution. The Left acts like all of the things we’ve done, and the trillion dollars we spent, in the past 50 years, never happened. It’s still 1967, and something HAS TO BE DONE about air pollution.
WTH!! Come on man!
I put this in the category of: If the facts don’t support your point of view, make ones that do!