It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


EPA Orders Employees to Remove YouTube Climate Video

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 12:03 PM

Washington, DC — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered two of its attorneys to remove a video they posted on YouTube about problems with climate change legislation backed by the Obama administration or face “disciplinary action”, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The couple had received clearance for posting the video but EPA took issue with its content following publication of an op-ed piece by the two in The Washington Post on October 31.

The video, entitled “The Huge Mistake”, is by Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, two EPA enforcement attorneys speaking as private citizens. The video explains why the cap & trade plan endorsed by President Obama will not accomplish its goals, let alone effectively curb climate change. On November 5, 2009, EPA ethics officials ordered the two veteran employees to –

* “Remove your climate change video from You Tube by the close of business on Friday, November 6, 2009”;
* “Edit your You Tube video…by:
o (i) Removing the language starting at 1:06 min – ‘Our opinions are based on more than 20 years each working as attorneys at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the San Francisco Regional Office.’
o (ii) Removing the images of EPA’s building starting at 1:06 min…
o (v) Remove [sic] the language starting at 6:30 min – ‘In my work at EPA, I’ve been overseeing California’s cap-and-trade and offset programs for more than 20 years.’”
* “All future requests for approval of an outside writing activity must be accompanied by a draft of the document that is the subject of the approval request…”

I'm actually getting tired of writing a response to each and every violation of freedom of speech. Just read the document to find out how BS it is. In the meantime, I'll continue looking for more meteorologists and climatologists that have been gag ordered.

I technically just started this search, and i'm already digging up too much stuff to organize.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 12:56 PM
Thanks for finding this. Will share this story with some of my friends who are always looking for these kinds of events. Freedom of speech has pretty much vanished in our world.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:00 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I must admit, after watching the video, I am flabbergasted!

Here we have two prominent EPA attorneys who obviously are sincerely convinced that CO2 is responsible for climate fluctuations (a position I disagree with), and yet are also vehemently opposed to Cap & Trade ( a position I agree with).

It would appear that, as I have hoped, the political winds are becoming confused. Instead of a stiff breeze, we are getting a tornado.

As to the requirements being demanded by the EPA, that is actually Standard Operating Procedure for any governmental body. No government employee is allowed to use their position to make political messages, nor to use their position in order to further personal goals. Of course, such restrictions are subjectively enforced, to assist in allowing employees who agree with management to air some views with a lot of leeway while tightly restricting others who disagree with management. It's simply the nature of the beast.

Obviously, since these two attorneys are being tightly restricted, their views are not held by the management at the EPA.

(Incidentally, every governmental employment contract in the USA also contains a section on patent/copyright restrictions. Any employee must ask for permission from their supervisors to apply for a patent or register a copyright, even if such is based entirely on personal time. Failure to do so can result in such patent/copyright being legally confiscated by the governmental body.)

The restrictions themselves are poorly worded. They can be read as all restrictions being required, instead of offering options to comply. This makes no sense when one considers they are calling for removal and editing of the video. Possibly this will be a loophole to make it possible for the attorneys to continue spreading their message. They are, after all, attorneys.

Thank you for the great find!


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


log in