CleanTechnicaReviews 35

This is one of the most absurd, corrupt one sided politically motivated sites I have had the opportunity to read and comment on.

They take money from big corps in order to push their agenda under the guise of journalism.

The site admins will ban you if you disagree with their statements on Tesla, facts non grata here. In the world, adults can have differing opinions without crying and banning critical thinking. It's anti-intellectualism at it's worst, albeit seeming to come from the left instead of the right.

I would advise people avoid this site if you are looking for any decent reporting. Terrible corporate stooges, liars, and a site scared to death of actual facts, as others have pointed out.

And I say this as someone who owns an electric car.

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.

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.

The articles I write for CleanTechnica are 100% independent. Nobody tells me what to write. Editors only edit details. All articles are truly personal and independently researched. Anyone who reads articles on CleanTechnica on a regular basis can tell that the stories are diverse in regard to the authors interests and depth of research. Some like the hard core number crunching themes. Others like personal tales of experiences with cleantech in general. These are real people writing stories from their heart. Cleantechnica is as diverse and authentic as it gets. Period.

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?

Lately, trolls have been targeting CleanTechnica. They've been casting aspersions that the site blocks comments and is paid for by big clean business. I'm a writer for CT and other progressive websites, and CT gives me more latitude than any other. I choose my topics, design my arguments, do my own research, and take either credit or responsibility for the way the audience responds. If a reader takes issue with one of my statements, I invite discussion and review of data, especially peer-reviewed sources. But the editorial staff doesn't give me a direction to follow excerpt to speak honestly and with evidence about ways that we, as citizens of the planet Earth, need to consider changes to our habits and lifestyles to reduce our carbon footprints. I feel lucky to be on staff and have an opportunity to share my voice at this point in our history.

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.

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.

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.