From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty.
A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.
Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a
“totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”
“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” asked Mr. Frank in a May 31 post.
“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161,” Mr. Frank said.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris belongs to a coalition of 17 state attorneys general that joined forces in March to pursue climate-change skeptics, starting with ExxonMobil.
The floor analysis cites as a rationale for the bill articles published last year by InsideClimate News and the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project accusing ExxonMobil of hiding its research on climate change, which the company has denied.
“By extending the statute of limitations, California has the opportunity to hold these companies fully accountable for their actions,” said the analysis.
The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change, stating that, “There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Walter Olson of the website Overlawyered called the bill “extraordinary,” adding that “the target is clearly public-issue advocacy.”
“Combined with the plans laid by California Attorney General Kamala Harris — part of the alliance of AGs that has sought to investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as ‘climate denial’— the bill would begin laying the legal groundwork for an astonishingly broad campaign of inquisition and, potentially, expropriation,” Mr. Olson said in a May 31 post.
====================================
This is mind blowing, they are suspending the statute of limitations with this language:
342.5.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
would not proof be needed to verify an untruth?
No, just bring charges and tie you up in court til you bleed dry.
Mann’s MO. His expenses don’t come out of his pocket.
Now the want the accuser’s expenses to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
Precisely, this is not about Justice or Truth. It is about Intimidation by Government. It is Fascism.
…. or science.
This unconstitutional law is being proposed by those who call themselves “Democrats”. This is overt fascism .
If the science was so certain it would not be necessary to make laws declaring it be the TRUTH.
Any law which has the word “truth” in it’s name is based on a lie.
A general rule of politics is that any law will do the opposite of what it’s name states.
From my early reading, it looks like merely disagreeing with the pronouncements of the state vis-à-vis climate change is sufficient proof of guilt.
welcome to communist China.
Time to join the local militia and defend the constitution.
That’s what this does. It eliminates the truth requirement for fraud by declaring what is truth.
Sheesh. You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines. Imagine the trouble that it would cause if you actually tried to pass a law making it illegal to question them. There’s an order of magnitude more certainty there.
You read good, Kemosabe.
Guess I’d better book my next Disney experience in Florida… I’d get arrested by the Thought Police in California.
“Sheesh. You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines.”
Many fake scientific thinkers around here don’t apply skepticism to anything with the label ‘vaccine’ on it, as far as I can tell. Disgusting blind faith in a word . .
“There’s an order of magnitude more certainty (with vaccines).”
And yet:
– vaccines aren’t tested like normal drugs
– there is no evidence that the flu vaccine is even useful at all
– there is overwelming proof that the Hep B vaccines cause MS
– the evidence of abominable side effects of vaccines is hidden
– doctors aren’t allowed by the boards to speak against the consensus position
– 99 % of proponents of vaccines are ignorant about all aspects of vaccines and regulations
– most people who invoke science don’t know anything about statistics
We routinely see that claim that studies show that some drug doesn’t cause some disease. But all the study shows is nothing: no effect at all or an effect that doesn’t reach STATISTICAL significance. Most people don’t know anything about science or statistics and don’t understand that.
“You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines”
“Barely”, but you STILL can get these abominable predatory/fascist laws with the support of the pro-business anti-CAGW crowd (Forbes, junkscience, etc.) and the leftist “pro-science” CAGW “anti-evolution den@r” crowd (SkS, Scienceblog, etc.).
Did you say anything when they came after “anti vax” aka the people who just wanted to apply the scientific method, or even usual medical principle “first do no harm” to vaccine? Where were you?
Sorry, I think you got what you deserve if you allowed vaccine criticism to be suppressed by law (medical “ethics”).
Ah ah ah. I am dancing on your trial. (No really.)
See something say something applies here.
See suppressing of dissent, say something.
Whereupon penalties will be levied against firms which also operate outside the state of California. i.e. the State of California intends to gain funds from external sources.
This should be interesting to watch. The reaction could be weighty.
benofhouston (and any others with a desire to get both sides of the vaccine issue) may want to start here with and open letter by Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology.
https://truthkings.com/immunologist-shreds-sb277s-logic/#
I think what they are trying to say is that the truth and facts are Unfair Competition. It’s sad when the honest are in power and the honest are the victims. Far from what the Founding Fathers ever imagined.
This is just straight-up, 100%, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Let them try it. Let it get all the way to the Supreme Court, to be shot down in flames. They know it would never stand; it’s just an intimidation bill, so people will think twice about being seen not giving obeisance to the Green meme. Any constitutional lawyer, hell, even the ACLU would be able to shit-can this doozy with one read. And given the “evidence” for CAGW, I don’t see a route for them to ever enforce it.
Yes, but consider who is on the Supreme Court, and what the ideology of the new ninth justice will be. We already have four who vote in lockstep, and decide what they want to rule before actually considering what the Constitution or law says. The new justice will likely provide the majority vote. It will be worse than when Kennedy was the “swing” vote: he occasionally would make a sensible ruling.
We are doomed, and that statement may not be hyperbole. 🙁
AllyKat:
It’s hard to know where you stand, could you be specific or ellaborate? Judges should apply the law and follow the Consitution. If they decided they would follow the law, before hand, it does not much matter. Judges should be loathe to legislate from the Bench. That is precisely what Justice Roberts did. That’s extraordinary and it was wrong.
The only time Justice Roberts legislated from the bench was when he decided that he was going to ignore the plain language of ObamaCare and ruled based on what he presumed the legislators meant, rather than what they wrote.
Markw: “The only time Justice Roberts legislated from the bench was when he decided that he was going to ignore the plain language of ObamaCare and ruled based on what he presumed the legislators meant, rather than what they wrote.”
I quote Tom Lehrer:
“Once all the Germans, were warlike and mean, but that could never happen again
“We taught then a lesson in 1918, and they’ve hardly bothered us since then.”
If Shell, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobile and Chevron found it impossible to operate in Cali, and shut off supplies, a supermajority of Californians would stop the state government’s lunacy pretty quickly. Governor Brown could grab the microphone and proclaim, “Stopping fossil fuel burning is better for our state,” but I think this would fail.
I think a short period of realising that the national media is completely reliant on electricity, and trying to get your views across using town criers will quickly change Governor Browns viewpoint
Gov Brown’s family fortune was made in corrupt representation of Indonesian Oil (read Royal Dutch Shell fellow travelers) Democrats have a very dirty underbelly in the history of fleecing the public in the name of environmentalism
Problem for them is the production wells they have in CA and the refineries there. Lots of capital tied up and also supplies for other states. The interstate commerce effects will get this in Federal Courts quickly but this is in the 9th circuit, the most liberal – leftist in the country. Then it will be off to the Supreme Court, making the filling of the empty seat critical.
So let CA try this, it’ll be fun to watch. It will also be a disaster for the economy of California and surrounding states.
The most liberal, and also the most over ruled. By far.
Not at all. The cost of mounting a defense would be prohibitive.
My senator is Bill Harris, he just got a letter from me. Thanks for the heads up.
that would require you to argue point of law, not point of fact – If the law says everyone must carry a plate of custard to protect them from space clowns, you can’t easily (or cheaply) argue that space clowns don’t exist – the court is there to examine whether you were or were not carrying your plate of custard. If the facts say you weren’t.. you have broken the law –
It should be more than apparent now why Hillary cannot be in a position to appoint more kooks to the SCOTUS.
My dawg once suffered from Scootus
. . . and I’d vote for your dawg before I’d vote for Hillary!
First it is AGW and next? What about creating a scientific backing for socialism/communism and then making it illegal to oppose?
We can always do what the soviets did. Just declare that anyone who disagrees with the government is mentally incompetent and lock them up.
When that doesn’t work, assign them to work camps in remote regions, where reporters aren’t permitted.
Or most any Islamic country, perhaps soon to be that kind of (Islamic) Europe, oh wait already headed there (maybe we be next):
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/27/you-tweet-a-lot-watch-your-tone-cops-threaten-dutch-man-for-opposing-govt-mass-migration-plans/
Well, there are some special snowflakes (and a former communications professor, IIRC) from Mizzou who have experience setting up media-free safe spaces…
Soviet enforcers had an advantage, a largely disarmed opposition.
No no, reporters will be permitted. There they can craft wonderfully inspiring stories about all the “professional help” that those delusional deniers are getting so that eventually they can rejoin society. And on the front gate a big welcoming sign that says “Consensus macht frei” .
Like that reporter from the NYTs that won a Pulitzer from writing that there was no famine in Russia, even while millions were dying around him.
“Broad consensus” If that is all it takes to remove the right of free speech, heaven help you.
If they come for my bacon, that’s when I’m takin’ the flintlock down off the wall!
Just make sure you do not put a scope and a bayonet on the flintlock, or you might get charged for having an “assault weapon”.
+1
I suggest that since CO2 is so deadly and the suppliers so evil that the only safe thing to do eliminate all ;fossil’ fuel delivery and use in Calif rather than risk future law suits. If the people of this left coast want to save the world they can start with thenselves.
that would the ‘wake up’ call to them!
Although I am a 5th generation native born and thereby have a right to say so, Crazyfornia government needs an enema
they are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels – a lot imported from out of state
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA
Well I think California should first immediately prohibit the sale, or use of fossil fuels such as petroleum and any products made from petroleum or natural gas, or of any contrivance or machine capable or operating on fossil fuel products. Once such products become illegal to sell for use in California, or sold from California to other locations, then it is ok to pursue prosecution of anyone advocating their use.
g
Let’s expand on that approach. How can it be possible to produce or sell these products while being aware that they are destroying the planet? Are they destroying the planet? The law says they are; ignorance of the law is no excuse, ergo anyone who sells or uses these products must be prosecuted.
Once the state loses a few cases I would assume they will be fighting suits for malicious prosecution like ants at a picnic. If they have any recall procedure, there’ll never be a better political career to destroy than this junior Nazi. Disgusting!
Let’s add the sale of anything made of plastic as these items are made from oil.
How will the rich get around in their private jets that hold 5 people and then drive away from the private hangers in there Prius. Unbelievable!!!! I would love for some of these folks to work in any town in America and see how real people live
and survive….they are so out of touch with reality it’s laughable.
Yes, they are out of touch with reality but we have allowed them to be in our Halls of government. This is what makes them dangerous. These people must be removed from office…and not soon enough.
#Max: The punishment that needs to be metted out here should go to the elected officials in Sacramento if this becomes law, not to California’s economy by denying the state its need for fossil fuels.
If this does become law, I would be quite surprised if the constitutionality of it is not challenged…and challenged all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. However, the very idea that some of the SCOTUS judges might agree with the law is an abomination as is the potential law itself.
The road to totalitarianism is paved not just with the greed for power and control, but with ignorance as well.
Since the majority of voters elected those officials in Sacramento and are the only ones capable of removing them, then it is entirely reasonable to deny the entire state the use of fossil fuels. Businesses should be advised to move too bordering states.
And, like the road to Hell, the road to totalitarian democracy is paved with good intentions, and decorated with the nation’s flag..
@jtom: No. Just stop and think for a minute.
What is going to happen if you deny the entire state access to fossil fuels? The state’s economy (the largest in the union I believe) is probably going to decline sharply if it does not totally shut down. What will happen then? The effects of that shutdown is going to reverberate throughout the entire U.S. economy and will probaby send us into a deep recession. The stock market will crash, and we ALL lose considerable value in our IRAs and 401Ks and other investments. Layoffs with begin and unemployment will shoot up nationwide.
I understand it when you say that the majority in California are responsible for what is happening in Sacramento because the majority put these irrepsonsible officials in office to begin with. However, I would like to suggest to you that you should not succumb to the same thought process issue that leftists are regularly accused of: Allowing your emotions to shutdown your ability to think critically and rationally and draw conclusions based on facts.
What is needed is for the the people of California to be enlightened on the subject of CAGW with the facts that the alarmists and activists cannot dispute. The state’s population needs to realize that they have been had on the issue of climate. If and when that happens, the behavior of state officials in Sacramento will hopefully reflect it.
CD in Wisconsin commented: “… because the majority put these irrepsonsible officials in office to begin with. …..”
Common misconception. Yes the majority of voters are responsible but only 40% of the people vote. Majority = 20%+. Americans are an easy target because of their apathy to politics and government. Face it, Capitalism has been good for the US and few can tell the difference anyway. Despite all the hype and bluster AGW caused problems for the citizens has been negligible to none so far. We fret over things like this because they are symptomatic of totalitarianism but the average Joe not so much. Example; Look at all the Federal land grabs to “protect wilderness and the environment” and “make parks (that no one can go to)” in the last 7 years…. the spin that’s believed is “it’s for the people”.
“Americans are an easy target because of their apathy to politics and government”
Maybe voters just don’t have any choice except between anti privacy right people (“pro life”) and anti privacy right and anti every other right (“pro choice”) people, with both groups supporting global surveillance and opposing the right to encrypt data and the 1st amendment right of Apple to not write program that destroy privacy?
simple-touriste commented: “…Maybe voters just don’t have any choice ….”
They do, they make the choices.
CD – I do not think there is any intelligent life left in California. Smart people left the state long ago. Of course, I have a similar problem living in the (un)free state of Maryland where we immediately adopt every ignorant idea coming out of California. The sacrifices we make to live close to family. Well, at my age, if I am lucky I have about ten more years; twenty, if I am unlucky.
markl, no. It is “for the children,” except for those sacrificed (aborted) on the altar of privacy.
Didn’t they defend slavery by claiming that it was a right to privacy?
if they tried, the California legislature could not produce a more unconstitutional bill. What next, establishing the Green Church and madate tithing? I agree with Logos_wrench that Hillary just might appoint someone to the court that would approve of this atrocity.
Seriously. I mean, there’s nothing else to say. This is an attempt to overthrow the constitution in the most blatant of ways.
One upside. Hopefully, it will finally cause people to wake up and say “enough is enough”.
Hillary should be asked where she stands on this. Hell, Trump should should make a statement and then challenge her on it. I want to hear Trump use ( learn?) some new adjectives. Odious, totalitarian come to mind. He can ad tremendous if he can’t help himself.
This article fails to name and shame the authors of the Bill.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,”
Let’s look at the bright side. It seems that anyone using models in lieu of physical evidence could be prosecuted under this law. Claiming a higher degree of feedback according to models would be unlawful. Bye Bye IPCC .
Absolutely! Is there any town or other jurisdiction in California with a skeptic bent? Even one would do.
If this law passes, it would be great if the first action taken would be against the alarmists, and it seems like there are many who are misleading the public on the dangers of CAGW. How about the model makers?
And just how in the Sam Hill does being skeptical of anything equate with Unfair Competition anyway.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical that Vaccinations do any good and are more harmful.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical that miniscule Cell Phone radiation poses no threat.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical of any number of things.
I guess skepticism of anything will become illegal in Crazyfornia.
Tom. every cloud has it’s silver lining, since all the models are different, having all those scientists duke it out in court to be declared the one true model builders, with the losers going to jail, What joy.
Bryan A — my thoughts exactly. Even assuming that AGW is going to do us all in, how do you further your commercial interests by denying it? Simply being called out for doing so will get people to boycott your business. This is surreal.
Anthony,
What will be the status of California meteorologists who publically express “doubts”
about anthropogenic-induced climate change… or even run a blog where such
doubts might be publicized ?
…there’s a chill in the air.
Our esteemed host might have to relocate to Free America, maybe Dallas or Bartlesville.
Not that PR sensitive Big Oil would welcome him with open arms.
I would speculate the “status” would rapidly become “mobile”…
FWIW, I have already established legal residence in Florida and I’m working on getting all my stuff relocated… 30 years accumulation is a lot of stuff to toss… and deferred maintenance to do…
California has become a good place to be from…
Welcome to Florida, the land of no state income tax, homestead exemptions and huge alligators.
+1
florida ain’t marin. land is cheap but there is a deep vein of appalling ignorance.
in marin, the fast checkout lanes say ’20 items or fewer’.
that kind of literacy, in florida, will never be.
where i’m living, it’s a rival for the fanatic control freakishness of texas.
and this is the state where goat raping is common in the news.
the activists are here in force, too.
Well I do not have ANY doubts that the climate results predicted to occur within the State of California by the present climate models, correctly predict what is known to have already occurred or not occurred.
That is they so far cannot predict what is known to have already come to pass. I make no assertion about their ability to predict anything that may happen in the future, only that which they have already predicted would occur.
G
How many scientists in the California Senate? I’m guessing none is the correct answer.
Nay Sir, this legislation sounds as if it were drafted by those who’ve called themselves “climate scientists” these past few years.
Almost unbelievable. What a sad day for the once great United States of America, the land of the free.
In a nation in which those convicted of “hate crimes” can be given additional, extra-special sentences and those who honestly debate scientific facts be condemned to prison (thank you, Bill, Nye, the Science Guy!), it seems that the United States Constitution has been well and truly trashed.
…Ah, good ole’ California…the land of fruits and nuts !
California is proof that the US is sloped to the west. All the fruits and nuts roll there.
Frank Lloyd Wright (The Architect) said that the people that inhabit California come from thus activity: Take a map of the USA, gradually tilt it close to upright, and all that fall/slide off, become Californians. I think the current SB 1161 embodies this brilliant observation.
The world is going mad.
Not going. Gone.
And Jefferson wept…
Strange that some Americans only now begin to realize that they live in the totalitarian state.
We’ll know in about nine months.
Think we’ll get to November, do ye?
please accept my general appreciation for your comments, alexander feht.
May we know the names of the nutcases who are backing this little piece of legislative art? Do we have no chance of sending someone home in November?
They will stop at nothing!
Not good.
So where is one to go? Skeptics might become the first climate change refugees, although political climate change asylum-seekers might be a better term.
Perhaps we can seek political asylum in Mexico…
Don’t go running scared. That’s what they want you to do.
This thing is just getting started. There will be a lot of pushback on this. Remember, the VI AG has already withdraw his prosecution, and he did so for the very same reason the others, including those in California, will do the same: They can’t prove that CAGW is real, and therefore they cannot prove anyone lied about it, which is the requirement for a charge of fraud.
The California legislature is proposing to violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens. Every state in the Union has a stake in this not happening.
This is the future if the Liberals get elected to the presidency: A walk into tyranny.
If Trump gets elected, then he will restored the U.S. Constitution and take on these Totalitarians.
At least we won’t be fighting alone on this. There is one group that believes in the first amendment more than anyone: the media. Attacking the first amendment even tangentially is the best way to get them on your bad side.
And please don’t call these people liberals.
The basis of liberalism is that they feel the government should help and care for people. While you can say their goals are naive or fundamentally flawed, you cannot say that this power grab banning opposing views is liberal. I cannot think of a more illiberal thing.
This is the difference between Sanders Socialism and Stalinist Communism. Force and the trampling of basic rights. One of these is a bad idea. The other is a living nightmare.
Don’t be fooled. Sanders’ Socialism is every bit as tyrannical as Stalin’s Communism. The difference is only semantic.
Again, why do you call totalitarians ‘liberal’, as in ‘liberty’?
They are radical, not liberal.
A communist is a socialist who’s in a hurry.
benofhouston
June 2, 2016 at 3:28 pm
As the Stein affair shows, not all the media are willing to overcome their political ideology to support the free speech rights of conservatives. But you’re right that even some Leftists will do so for their opponents, out of self-interest.
Ooo, I think you just figured out the REAL design of the bill: creating “climate change refugees”. If the environmental climate will not cooperate, the political climate will just have to suffice.
“The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change…”
If that is so, can anyone point me to the authoritative document that provides the exact causes, extent, and current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change? From what I’ve seen, those pronouncements are highly speculative and keep changing from year to year. Where is this authoritative list so I can be sure not to publicly disagree with anything on it whenever I happen to be in California? For example, is the prediction that children will not know what snow is on the list of future impacts that cannot be disagreed with?
We have reached the point where politicians are declaring scientific truths.
And to think, so many of our trolls constantly whine whenever we spend too much time talking about politics.
I wonder if any of them will have the courage to show up on this thread?
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest that just posting to a site like this, no matter where you may live will mean CA politicians will try to sue you.
I plead guilty to CAGW skepticism. I’ve seen no evidence of it. Perhaps the California politicians could show us some evidence proving it exists. It shouldn’t be that difficult, they can just use the same evidence they are using to write this new law.
Let them try! By the formerly sacred constitution if a state wishes to sue someone from another state, it must be done in Federal Court, under US rules and laws not those of the state. Now if I were to have business in California, I would forgo any ventures there and divest myself of any holdings possible.
The oil companies should suddenly get extremely safety conscious and find a need to do pipeline maintenance on EVERY pipeline leading into California for about a month when this is in final reading/vote form. Also all the refineries should suddenly get VERY safety conscious and shutdown for any niggling problem that has been around for 20 years, running California out of refined products. Maybe they should do a state safety recall on all petroleum products as it has been determined by the state of California to be calamity of first order to use the product as intended, followed by a complete withdrawal of the product from the market in California. This should be followed by withdrawal of natural gas and coal deliveries as well. California needs to lead the nation in “decarbonization”!
Of course it would be nice if the companies would let Arizona, Nevada and Oregon know ahead of time so they can mobilize the National Guard to the border to prevent refugees from escaping the mess they made.
(apologies to our host for locking him in with the crazies, but hopefully my California relatives (in the Sacramento and Chico areas) won’t cause him too many problems!)
There is legitimate disagreement on the cause and extent of GRAVITY! Name one topic in science that has no one investigating and questioning the predominant theory.
“The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change…”
Seems that this Bill would declare a scientific theory as having the status of truth, which offends the first part of the First Amendment forbidding the establishment of religion.
Litigation could take the Form of the Scopes Monkey Trial, not on the basis of which side of the debate is correct, but on the power of the State of California to declare that expression of “incorrect” scientific beliefs is unlawful.
Sounds more and more like the world in the work of fiction (now fast becoming a work of Faction) of Ayn Rand…”Atlas Shrugged”…
Though I do have to ask for a little clarification Anthony. In the third paragraph you wrote
==================================================================================
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
==================================================================================
How retroactive applies to a future date. Did you mean Jan 1 2012?
Thanks
No he means that actions that occurred prior to Jan 1, 2013 can be acted on, under this bill.
If I can answer as I see it : the 4-year limit can be ignored until Jan 1 2021. ie, an organisation can be prosecuted for any sceptical statement or sceptically-related action at any time in the past, provided charges are laid by Jan 1 2021. Nasty.
Nasty, and a violation of the U.S. Constitution against ex post facto laws. You can’t prosecute a crime that occurred before the law was passed. I’m sure they thought about that and have a rationale already thought out. They will probably claim that they’re only clarifying parts of the UCL (unfair competition law), which is a law that is already in effect. But they will need a sympathetic liberal court to bend the Constitution for them if this law is to remain on the books. That will take years, so the law will have its intended chilling effect on skeptics regardless.
I thought the constitution was the supreme law of the land.
This should be tied up in courts for a couple of days (Sorry Mark) You would think everyone would be up in arms just over the proposal clearing committee – I hope they video this when it hits the senate floor, this may be the bill to open the door for republicans
Somebody, please send the link to this to Donald Trump!!!
The U.S. Constitution *is* the law of the land, and this California law will not stand the test.
The fact that an elected official wrote it and had enough support to get it this far is chilling by itself.
The problem is the tens of thousands of lives ruined while the first test case works up to the supreme court over a decade…
‘The U.S. Constitution *is* the law of the land’
Explain the Volstead Act.
You’re right. The whole point of SLAPP suits is that being dragged into court is the punishment.
Even if you win, you lose.
benofhouston June 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Actually, it is no surprise that an elected official wrote it. One of the things that is frequently neglected in what passes for Civics classes these days is that the Bill of Rights is intended not to support democracy but to protect individuals from the potential excesses of democracy – the tyranny of the mob. We currently hear about “democracy” as if it were uniformly a good thing, rather than the best of a wide array of port choices. But democracy unfettered leads to situations as bad as any that can be found in history. Study the execution of Socrates and the subsequent decline of Athens, the death of Julius Caesar (who arguably needed it) at the hands of a “quorum” of the Roman senate (it has been argued that Caesar was legally executed rather than murdered since the action was taken by a senate quorum), ands consider the role democracy in Adolf Hitler’s rise power. He wasn’t elected, but the man who appointed him Chancellor was.
Elected officials enact laws that they believe will benefit their constituents, and if a minority of those are unhappy, the elected fellow simply shrugs. If they weight their “constituents” by their bank roll, then money talks – votes. What is disturbing is that the bill was framed at all, since it plainly suspends the First Amendment. But then you consider other limits of free speech – some apparently reasonable and others not so much, or at all. You literally cannot joke about hijacking or bombs in an airport without risking arrest. You can use the wrong literature in a college English class and be convicted of everything including sexual harassment of students by assigning say D. H. Lawrence to read.
Amen! When I was young we were told that our freedom was our greatest asset. It was what separated us from the evil Nazis and Soviets. Somehow, we’ve lost sight of that.
Socialists have long supported hate speech laws which clearly violate the 1st amendment.
So they have a long history of supporting the suppression of speech that they disagree with.
““deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.””
Yeah, except they really won’t go after those folks,
they’ll go after “climate skeptics” instead.
““deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.””
that sounds like a two-way street, bring Al in and ask why there is still ICE!
Good point. Can the bill be used to go after those who have made failed alarmist predictions?
Can the legislation be used to prosecute warmists for false claims?
Bills passed by leftists only apply to their enemies. Never themselves.
No, because in the text they declare the truth itself.
In theory, that should be possible. But when courts get politicized enough, it might be difficult to get a fair treatment. This is what happens all the time all over the world. People want to control their political opponents with legislation.
Why do you think campaign financing laws are so popular with politicians.
They always end up hindering the challenger making existing politicians even more secure.
I think it is time to free ourselves from the preconception that environmentalism is equivalent to humanism, the environmentalists seems to be a greater threat to humans and civilization than climate change can ever become.
respect to Sci or Fi. another commenter i appreciate.
I lived in the Bay Area for 22 years and it is hard for most normal people to appreciate how looney-tunes most people are in that State, especially in that part of it. And many of these are people with Masters and PhD degrees, so in theory not “stupid.”
I don’t think those of us who grew up in the 20th Century appreciate that belief systems can and still do overwhelm reasoned examination of facts. We like to think such broad-scale social behavior (belief systems with questionable factual basis) are something “of the past” when people were in the thrall of metaphysical/ religious belief systems.
Well, the reality about humanity is that we are just as susceptible to irrational belief systems now as we were then. Science is of no help. Lack of a belief in “God” is no help. We want to so desperately believe in something “bigger than ourselves” that vast numbers of us will not only believe in nonsense, but will want to forcibly prevent others from having different opinions.
The “death of God” is showing its ugly consequence.
…As an Agnostic person, I agree with you… 1,000%
I’m atheist, but still feel that metaphysical religion has its place, and since Christianity (at least, if not Islam or Judaism) has renounced a Church-State nexus, people in Christian countries are (mostly) free from the tyranny of God in their civil lives.
But, if environmentalism as a belief system replaces Christianity, as I believe it is doing, we are back to the 12th century in the relationship between belief systems and the State.
Are you sure JP?
For example, a ME PhD college professor has been advocating using propane as a working fluid power plants instead of water because it is more efficient. Incredibly stupid.
Advanced degrees indicate specialized knowledge not advanced intelligence. I had 5 PhD geologist tell me I could not comment on technical issue. My response was it was high school chemistry and nuclear physics. Both of which they got wrong.
Part of not being stupid, is being skeptical. For example, I new reactor engineer fresh out college was surprised that the old guy was skeptical of AGW. I promptly got links to USA Today stories on GW. I asked him how many times he cited USA Today in his thesis. A few years later he was skeptic.
r. kit p –
you don’t indulge the dummies a bit. you call em as you see em and don’t care if it triggers some wuss into his safe space.
i appreciate your comments .
JP Miller wrote: “Well, the reality about humanity is that we are just as susceptible to irrational belief systems now as we were then. Science is of no help. Lack of a belief in “God” is no help. We want to so desperately believe in something “bigger than ourselves” that vast numbers of us will not only believe in nonsense, but will want to forcibly prevent others from having different opinions.”
And all this is complicated by the Leftwing News Media spewing lies in all directions. The Leftwing News Media is probably the biggest threat to the freedoms of Americans that exist.
A self-governing country like the U.S. cannot govern itself properly without the people knowing the truth, and they are not getting the truth from the Leftwing News Media, they are getting Leftwing propaganda and lies that create false realities.
Nine months will tell the tale. Then we will see which direction the U.S. is going. Here’s hoping it is to the Right.
“The “death of God” is showing its ugly consequence.”
Yes! As an atheist, I have often thought the decline in religious participation has created a lack of an outlet for guilt. CAGW has filled the void of organized religion in creating an anodyne for personal guilt. Man is wicked but perform these ablutions and your sins will be forgiven. CAGW has the same function as the traditional religions and as always, the worst part are the proselytizers demanding we all convert to their particular religion.
Environmentalists: believe what you will but for the love of God, please leave me alone.
Assuming it doesn’t die in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional…
This could be a great way to turn the tables. Any trial would end up dragging in the actual scientific data not the modelled crap.
This could backfire in two ways. First by demonstrating that the scepticism is warranted. Second that the people that are lying about the science are the alarmists. The bill appears to not outlaw scepticism of climate change as mis-representing the science. And I suggest that a very good case can be made for that for alarmism.
I’m about to agree that the only way CAGW will be exposed as the fraud it is will be in a medium where rules of evidence apply. This could backfire on them if CAGW is fully vetted in the only process in existence known to man to have the most chance at fairness, a court of law with both sides fairly represented. Not tried in the press, not ‘peer review’ science.