The WaPo’s lovely palpitations about new EPA head Scott Pruitt

Scott Pruitt

Even jaded conservatives will enjoy the WaPo’s hysterical palpitations just because Scott Pruitt will return the EPA to its original anti-pollution mission.

Just when you think the mainstream media has lost the power to charm, the Washington Post comes out with an article about Scott Pruitt’s statement disputing the Chicken Little certainty that the melting sky is falling and that we’re all going die. The article is so completely over the top, so replete with paranoia and misinformation, and so unintentionally funny that it really made my day.

The humor starts with the headline: “On climate change, Scott Pruitt causes an uproar — and contradicts the EPA’s own website.

Oh. My. God!!! How can the new boss dare to contradict the almighty edicts from on high contained in a previous administration’s website?

Perhaps you’re thinking that the headline is just a copywriter’s little joke and is unrelated to the article’s content. No. No. Nooo. Please enjoy this breathless paragraph:

On the science of climate change, Pruitt’s statements fly in the face of an international scientific consensus, which has concluded that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” For that matter, they also contradict the very website of the agency that Pruitt heads. (Emphasis mine.)

That’s some heavy-duty reporting you’ve got there if your scientific authority is to point to a dispute between new management and old. The Progressives really seem to be struggling with the concept Obama announced in 2009: “I won” — the unspoken subtext of which is “I’m the new boss and we do things my way.”

To read more, please go here.

About Bookworm 1357 Articles
Bookworm came late to conservativism but embraced it with passion. She's been blogging since 2004 at Bookworm Room about anything that captures her fancy -- and that's usually politics. Her blog's motto is "Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts."