CleanTechnica

The editor and moderator of Clean Technica does not follow the rules of Aristotelian science inquire and examination or the rules of journalism. The cowardly and dishonest tactic they use in yellow journalism is to attack the poster (using a made-up name) that they do not like with screaming innuendo and when the poster tries to respond, they block his response. Renewable Energy World is number one in reporting renewable energy developments, they at least are honest with their readers and allow civil discourse in discussions without attacking the poster and then blocking the posters response.

The lack of critical thinking in this source's reporting is a perfect example the technocratic zeitgeist of Tesla fanboys everywhere. CleanTechnica's worldview is that anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them is a pawn for big oil, and the comments here indicate as much. It's idiocy. It's misleading. It's dangerous.

This source publishes misleading articles. See below for a small example of how brainwashed this purveyor of questionable information is.

Cleantechnica headline: Fossil Vehicle Sales In Global Freefall Down 4.7% In 2019! Electric Vehicle Sales Continue To Grow CleanTechnica Report (https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/18/fossil-vehicle-sales-in-global-freefall-down-4-7-in-2019-electric-vehicle-sales-continue-to-grow/) (Jan. 18,2020)

Bloomberg headline: World's Largest Car Market Reports Second Straight Annual Decline
(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-09/china-december-car-sales-fall-3-6-capping-second-annual-drop) (Jan. 9,2020) ("Yet electric-vehicle demand has also sputtered since the government scaled back subsidies last year, leaving consumers assessing whether the higher prices for EVs are worth it. Wholesales of new-energy vehicles, including electric cars, fell 15% last month to 137,000 units, PCA said.")

electrive.com headline: CAM study finds USA and China EV markets in decline (https://www.electrive.com/2020/01/14/cam-study-finds-usa-and-china-ev-markets-in-decline/) (Jan. 14,2020)

CleanTechnica is a site for 'articles' that are approved and sponsored by corporations. There isn't anything wrong with that except that readers aren't going to understand what they're up against if they haven't researched the site and will believe that the 'comment' section is for free wheeling diverse opinions. They are NOT! If you question information about the corporations that support the content you will suddenly find yourself being attacked in crude ways if you go too far for their comfort! They apparently feel this threatens their revenue!

If the site isn't comfortable with your ideas they'll play tag team! For instance, the editor will be tagged as a 'top commentator', not as editor, owner or employee, and join in for a set up question. They'll claim your opinions are non factual but neither are theirs! The moderators enforce this. Business logic isn't good enough for them if it doesn't conform to the preferred outlook. The pattern is set up question followed by beat down of any contrary outlook.

The site is open about their business model IF you go to the pages where they appeal to advertisers and explain how to 'sponsor' articles. Most readers aren't familiar with this model they aren't likely to understand that CleanTechnica's articles are specifically for making money from sponsors! It was only after very strong armed attacks in the commentary section that I got suspicious and looked at the site more thoroughly.

Read the negative reviews. They are by real users. The positive ones are by shills. You will see the difference.

First, credit where it's due: CleanTechnica is, without doubt, one of the best sources of information for anyone interested in sustainable energy and transport and other green issues. There's a never-ending stream of interesting, well-written and generally well-researched articles.

Yet despite all this good stuff, as a reading experience CleanTechnica is hard to stomach. For example, a fair proportion of the articles are peppered with clumsy insults directed against the Republican Party and the Trump administration. Now, granted, it's hard to support a green agenda and not feel highly critical of these bodies. But when a writer interleaves serious information and juvenile comments, their work loses credibility. Similarly, head honcho Zach - such a knowledgeable guy - is perpetually bewildered that there are people too stupid to choose a Tesla. And says so, repeatedly.

Then there's the comments section. Full of knowledgeable posters, it's patrolled by a pack of angry man-babies on permanent red alert, ready to attack anyone who expresses even a moderately contrary opinion. These are inevitably labelled as trolls or FUDsters. The management pitches in by deleting any post that challenges The Message.

In summary, it's one of the best sites out there, but in serious need of some emotional intelligence.

I find some of the negative reviews here are appalingly biased and entirely devoid of any truth. I should know, because I have been reading it every day for a number of years. Articles that i have read are mostly very stimulating and well researched. Each article seems to be the original, and well researched work of the author, arising from their personal interest, knowledge, and experience. A very small number of items are provided by guest contributers who are promoting their own product, but these are in a tiny minority. I myself have submitted some articles which have been published, and i am a retired public servant with no connections to any corporations.

I suppose it is the hazard of being the #1 site that it will attract more than its fair share of trolls, though authors and other contributers are fairly patient with them. I have never seen any comments removed, so if anyone has been banned altogether they must be entirely appaling.

Pretty simple. I started reading CT, but noticed a complete lack of critical thinking, lack of numbers, analysis, and irrational exuberance toward green companies. So I googled for CT reviews, which led me here, and found others who agreed, including mentioning the trolls in the comment section defending the advertarticles. Now CT has expanded their propaganda machine to this site, the CT editorial board reviewing themselves favorably and claiming their advertarticles really aren't. LOL.

Sorry CT, I don't mute the news program and unmute for the commercials, further, your site is dangerous to the real green community, it results in disasters like A123 systems (batteries) and Solyndra (solar panels), which negatively affect the ability of good green tech to get subsidies. Rush Limbaugh wants to sell me useless survival gear, CT wants to sell me useless subsidized green gear. Which will be worse for our future?

I am a person who read 10 or what sometimes seemed like 25 books on every choice I made with my children's physical health when I was young. I eventually did research papers academically on those very subjects to prove to myself my choice stood the test of time. Although, I support that self-educating people have the most to offer-- what Cleantechnia offers is both. Mostly, I am a recovered academic. I want facts that stand the test of time -- not the latest fad. I feel I had to cut through 'fake' news in the 1970s, and raised by a Dr. who told me not to follow Madison Avenue that controlled media -- I came by this way of choice honestly. I feel I find the Voice in many of the posts at Cleantechnica satisfies my critical Creative Writing standards. I can't read many things these days that don't. But more importantly, I find the research presented on Cleantechnica satisfies both my demand for the authentic research side in terms of credible research -- but More. I find many of the writers prove themselves to be self-educating critical thinkers that use that research with discernment.

For more than a decade now, CleanTechnica has been the go-to leader of all things clean tech. The site is highly respected and has more readers than any other clean tech news site out there. The site is actively moderated and spammers and trolls are blocked/banned only after repeated warnings to improve their conduct. Those that are bitter and grumpy about the fact that they've been banned aside, millions upon millions of satisfied readers are stoked on the site and the global progress it promotes. The site does allow advertorials, as do most websites these days, but unlike many of those other sites, all advertorials are 100% very clearly labeled as such and all links in those articles follow Google's very clear guidelines on sponsored content. The advertorial content makes up less than 1% of the site's total content. Here's an example: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/02/led-lighting-retrofits-hawaiian-homes-faster-paybacks-solar-power/

CleanTechnica is known for clear-minded analysis. You'll find positive reviews of clean tech, and you'll also find reviews that cast doubt on clean technologies that are unproven. The editors of CleanTechnica are industry veterans that only want to see the right technologies used to solve the appropriate global challenges... it's technology agnostic. So you know you're getting the straight truth.