Fox News falsely claimed EPA officials "questioned the science behind global warming policy"

Please note that GoreViDelly is a poor source of information and cannot be trusted. She is a documented rabid fabricator and AGW cultist who says things like, "I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases."

When confronted, she lies about ever saying it claiming "Of course I never did anything of the sort." When she realizes she is caught lying, she then moves on to Plan B and claims it was joking hyperbole saying:

"Thanks for showing all of us that you can't even understand HYPERBOLE. I jokingly said that I hope that you drown when the sea levels increase..."

Neglecting to remember the fact that she had recently said this about hyperbole and jokes:

"No, actually, it was not a joke. You were attacking the argument of someone who suggested that George Will shouldn't get to peddle such nonsense. Yes, you were facetitious in your suggestion that we burn him like once happened to witches, but it wasn't a joke - that's called hyperbole, which is not anywhere close to the same thing as a joke. Why am I not surprised that you can't/won't/don't understand the difference?"

Tis best to just ignore zealots like her, but I choose not to here so as to correct her misinformation yet again. Dully, anyone who had there hands on the original video, Republican Darrell Issa for instance (doubt he's an old family friend), can post it again and again on YouTube in its original form.

The point I clearly made was the story was correct in saying that the video was down as they were referring to the posting by the couple. As to whether or not it is relevant, considering the post I was responding to, it was very much so.

As for your tool reference, yet another mirror moment for you. I guess the tool that would best describe you is cookie cutter--everything you produce is simply a regurgitated copy of some form from the AGW scripture. Never anything original.

DellDolly --

Deniers constantly imply there's a cover up to keep people from speaking out. Cover-ups are the only way their position can even work. They don't want to use the word "conspiracy" to describe this wingnut attitude. But by every definition of the term, they're promoting a conspiracy theory to prop up their position.

Of course, they'll never explain just why no one takes their "proofs" seriously, without resorting to some mumbled ramblings about silencing the critics. Hmmm... Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

The fact that it is so easy to get access to all the dissenting material just proves these conspiracy theories are just crap.

You are right. The video is still available, no matter where you can access it - it's still out there to be viewed. Regardless of what "gal" says, the video at Williams & Zabel's home page does NOT say, "Sorry, the video is currently unavailable." It says you have to "friend" them first.

Here's an article that was published by the couple last October. No censorship here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002988.html

Also, here's an explanation of the "controversy" about the EPA and the video. This is a typical response any employer would have. Actually, private employers would probably fire them for making such a video. Because they work for a gov't agency, I'm sure open dissent would be tolerated more - as it has.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1109/111009cdam2.htm

SLRTX

I agree, that single events do not in themselves tell much.

The trend is what is important. A series of climate events, eventually add up to something more than isolated events.

When you get record snows in China two years in a row, this is not an unusual event, it is a trend that is forming.

Germany also had the lowest October temperature ever recorded last month.

New Zealand had the coldest temperatures in 64 years and the latest snow ever recorded.

US temperatures were the 3rd coldest in 134 years in October.

So cold temperatures all around the globe. Where is all the warming from an increasing amount of atmospheric CO2?

According to satellite data, atmospheric temperatures have been cooling for eight years. How many years do we need to go before you agree temperatures are cooling and not warming?

"Their complaint was for the bill as currently written - not the concept of cap and trade itself."

Really? Perhaps you missed my quote from Zabel: "Cap and trade for climate change has been tried in Europe. It produced harmful volatility in energy prices and few greenhouse gas reductions. It raised energy prices for consumers and made billions in windfall profits for utilities." Here's a new one from Williams: "Even the economists who came up with the cap-and-trade idea don't believe it's an appropriate tool for addressing climate change."

Despite your protests, it appears they are in fact against the concept of cap and trade itself in regards to CO2. Their plan more closely resembles Nader's carbon tax plan (though it is different) and is far removed from a cap-and-trade system. Again, apples and oranges.

Now for your other point. You should know me well enough by now to know that I do not believe the science supports AGW. Thus, your claims that I agree with the couple that climate change is man-made and that we need to do something about it are of course false. Were we to be forced down the CO2-mitigation path though (kicking and screaming in my case, cheering and hand-springing in yours), I would certainly prefer a more equitable system like a carbon tax to the inequitable do-nothing, Gore-enriching, cap-and-trade/offset debacle being peddled. Given the choice though, I wouldn't go with either system, so yes, I am ready to take them on.

I've been around the block enough times to know if something looks too good to be true, then it probably is, BUT if the news that Anthony or Steve or Lucia or Jeff have tentatively reported turns out to be true, then this will prove to be the death knell of AGW and I for one will be thrilled (it would make the Lindzen paper I mentioned last week look tiny in comparison).

Since you claim to not be "as dogmatic as [I'd] like to think" and claim to have an open mind, please put your detective's hat on and take a look into it. I would love to know your thoughts on it, especially since you so frequently throw around the conspiracy theory angle (be sure to read the comments to get a wider picture of the story).

As for me, I tread forward cautiously. As I mentioned, it looks too good to be true so I am leaning toward it being a very elaborate hoax authored by someone within the AGW cult aiming to get "deniers" such as myself all frothy and moving forward with it as legitimate, only to then have them pull the rug out from underneath us for a nice big hearty laugh.

My guess though is that due to the enormity of the story, even if only potentially true, there will be at the very least many FOIA requests, and perhaps even some official congressional investigation (that is, if the "hoax" isn't first exposed). But if that does happen and this really is the work of a mole/whistleblower, there will be serious legal ramifications for those involved. Never mind what it would do to AGW.

As I've said many times before, AGW is built of a flimsy house of cards on the shakiest of foundations. The weak theory has been chipped chipped chipped away at many, many times and I have often predicted that the house will soon come tumbling down. I have also been talking about the enormity of the recent (and less recent) problems facing the all-stars of the "science" and have specifically and repeatedly mentioned Mann, Briffa, Jones, Santer, etc. (regardless of the authenticity of this particular story, these same players have had crucial roles in helping perpetuate the AGW fallacy and I predict they will someday publicly pay the price for doing so).

And even if this story pans out to be a hoax, as I expect it might, I still stand by the prediction that the AGW theory is going down, and will go down as one of the biggest frauds ever foisted upon us. When that day does come, I hope you are willing to exercise your "open mind" and accept it.

I know better than to expect that from GoreViDellDolly. She is a lost cause and, when AGW does crumble, I fear she will be a shattered sheep. But I do feel that you are less deeply-entrenched in the cult so my hope is you will emerge relatively unscathed, and I honestly mean that despite all the jabs I have taken (and despite Dully's hope that I die, I hope she too is able to eventually recover--may take years of therapy though).

This does lead me to another of my predictions. I have often claimed that when this fraud is fully exposed it will hurt the environmental causes I hold near and dear as the public will likely forever have a skeptical eye toward anything green (this is aside from the resource diversion from these causes I have also often mentioned).

So where would a slaughtered AGW theory leave the environment? What difficulties will those of us like you and I who do care about habitat destruction, ocean depletion, and species eradication have in convincing the public to take action and make donations toward these causes? My hope is that my prediction that these causes will be irreparably damaged does not come true. At the very least, there will be a long period of rebuilding.

In the meantime...chip...chip...chip...