Lyin’ Washington Post: Pretends EPA change on PM2.5 is arbitrary

Meet the Washington Post’s expert on PM2.5… New Republic writer Emily Atkin.

The Lyin’ WaPo goes out of its way to ignore the work of Steve Milloy/Stan Young/Jim Enstrom/Congress on PM2.5 in order to make the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan look arbitrary. First, read how our work forms the economic basis for the repeal of the CPP.

The relevant excerpts from the Lyin’ WaPo article are below. Note they pretend there is only one side of the PM2.5 story.

The Lyin’ WaPo is lying by omission.

Note the Lyin’ WaPo article also relies on:

3 thoughts on “Lyin’ Washington Post: Pretends EPA change on PM2.5 is arbitrary”

  1. Not too sure that generation of power is ever “clean.”

    Every kind costs a-plenty, even our horsepower of yesteryear, not only for whatever method of generation is used but the cleanup afterward.

    We could go back to walking everywhere to pick our greens and hunt our protein, but someone would protest we were compacting the soil in our footpaths and disrupting the wildlife.

    Stop the planet, I want to get off.

  2. Why would the WaPo give both sides of the story and let you decide? If they cited the Stan Young study or the Enstrom report you might come to the wrong conclusion.
    We can’t have that, now can we?
    We want to show that conservatives want dirty air and progressives want clean air. How hard is that to understand?
    BOTOH… how clean is clean?? Do we even know?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.