My View: The California Air resources Board is quickly becoming the most dangerous bureaucratic organization in California. This latest contempt for a public that questions the validity of their mission is way over the top. As the headline says, CARB is actively considering:
…a proposed regulation which would prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or to its staff.
Guess who gets to determine the “dishonesty” of a “statement or submittal” to CARB?
Of course, it’s OK if CARB makes a 340% error of their own while using false data to impose their will on the people of California. And of course it’s OK to publicly flaunt the ugly hubris of the CARB boss Mary Nichols rubbing her glee in the face of the citizens of California that voted for Prop 23. And of course it’s OK to simply demote a CARB “scientist” who lied about his PhD degree obtained from a UPS store rather than fire his fraudulent bureaucratic butt and then stage a cover up about it. But, when a citizen submits some data or opinion to CARB that they may later find questionable? Well, that’s a whole different matter.
What a bunch of self serving, holier than thou, public sector putzes!
Evidently CARB is contemplating a regulation that would enable penalties for what would be judged “dishonest statements or submittals” provided to it or “staff.” I think one can safely assume that it is aimed at curtailing challenges to CARB’s agenda that are based on alternative scientific information and interpretations.
Here’s a message from their listserver, you just have to read this to believe it:
—–Original Message—–
From: owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov
[mailto:owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov] On Behalf Of wfell@arb.ca.gov
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:31 PM
To: post-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov
Subject: arbcombo — Air Resources Board Workshop to Discuss Proposed Regulation Relating to False Statements Made to ARB or its Staff
ARB staff invites you to participate in a workshop on December 1, 2010 to discuss a proposed regulation which would prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or to its staff.
The workshop will provide the public with a chance to discuss the proposed regulation and to provide initial comment and feedback
We welcome your participation in this event.
For further information, please view the web page at http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/falsestatements/falsestatements.htm
which contains regularly updated information.
======================================================================
You are subscribed to one of the lists aggregated to make this particular ARB combination listserve broadcast. To UNSUBSCRIBE:
Please go to http://www.arb.ca.gov/listserv/listserv.php and enter your email address and click on the button “Display Email Lists.”
To unsubscribe, please click inside the appropriate box to uncheck it and go to the bottom of the screen to submit your request. You will receive an automatic email message confirming that you have successfully unsubscribed. Also, please read our listserve disclaimer at http://www.arb.ca.gov/listserv/disclaim.htm .
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, visit the Flex Your Power website at www.fypower.org ..
======================================================================
My source for this email (who shall remain nameless) writes:
An attorney-member of our network, (Roger E. Sowell), who is knowledgeable in environmental law and possesses a strong technical background, had the following initial reaction:
There is a Federal law at 18 USC 1001, that provides for a fine and up to 5 years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully providing false information of a material fact, among several other things, to any part of the Federal government. (I’m paraphrasing here). see e.g. http://vlex.com/vid/sec-statements-entries-generally-19190798
As just a sample of the issues, the key words are:
“Knowingly”
“Willfully”
“False”
“Material”
Each of those words has a specific meaning, usually hammered out in court cases. CARB cannot just arbitrarily choose definitions of such words, to suit their purpose. They must comply with the law and legal precedents. Where this gets very, very interesting is in the definition of “false.” We are dealing with scientific information, and science is fairly fuzzy. There are uncertainties in data measurements, to name merely one of several problem areas, as well as experimental design errors, choice of data analysis methods, interpretation of results, etc.
There are almost always factions of scientists that can be found to support almost any view – although a few viewpoints are appropriately discredited as crackpot. The fact is that new data is discovered or developed; new and better explanations for old data are developed; old theories discarded and new theories put forward, showing that science is not settled and that the definition of “false” is slippery when applied to a statement related to science.
There are other problems with a criminal falsity statute, such as applicability to various situations, and exemptions, also conformity with the Constitution and various standards embodied there. In addition, there are fraud claims that can arise if funding for scientific research led to false statements based upon the research findings.
Also, this could easily be turned around on CARB, by asserting that the “science” they relied on in many of their regulations was false information, knowingly and willfully presented.
As I see it, seems to be a basic thought police tactic, very Orwellian.
It lays down punitive measures that can be called on if California’s scientific fascist police decide “this statement is a scientific lie, by our consensus, therefore you in opposing it are not a skeptic. You’re a dishonest liar and we are gonna penalize you.
Thugs, free speech means nothing to these people. I expect similar legislation to start popping up in Australia and England.
There is no doubt that California’s economy and political-social structure are headed for collapse. But we don’t know how it will resolve when the crisis hits. We can expect an appeal for some kind of bail out by the other states via the federal government, which is itself broke. The argument will be made that California, as 13% of the economy, is “too big to fail.”
Will the feds say, “You broke it; you fix it.” We will see.
I’m part of the California sane drain. With a h/t to Bob Hope in “The Road to Casablanca” (I think) movie; Flea, Anthony Flea.
Hey you, stay in the dark so WE can feed you CARB Bullshine!! Magic mushroom treatment, and regulation by order!!
All that is missing is the black toothbrush moustache!!
Since the term “trick” is used in the proposed regulations, I wonder if Michael Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline” of tree ring proxy temps would count as a violation.
Re: the intro photo. By the time you’re fifty, you have the face you deserve. L
Wade said it. “A crooked tree must be cut down….. California’s government cannot be fixed, it has to be cut down and start over”. I say give me the shears! Someone needs to cut back this invasive diseased growth before it spreads elsewhere! Pruning the CARB branch is a perfect place to start.
Those of you outside this idyllic socialistic paradise had better hope that we can cut this tree down (or at least prune it back agressively). Because if we don’t, then it’s seed will take root in your state (if it already hasn’t) and ruin your life there too! People here in CA aren’t any more stupid than people anywhere else in this country. They have just fallen for a bigger false promise (of something for nothing) than has been peddled in your state.
Just think about CA for a minute: An unrivaled diversity of natural resources; A tradition of world leadership in industry (petroleum, agriculture, mining, transportation, aerospace, entertainment, technology, etc.); A location that combines physical beauty, mild climate and favorable geography that make it a destination for the world; In addition to literally being the bread basket for the nation. All of this brought down in my lifetime by a bunch of idealists, intellectuals, dupes and sponges. They have literally killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
It is interesting to note that California is now a great social experiment. With most of the nation seeing the empty choices offered by the nanny state and deciding at the ballot box to try and change course, CA has decided to stay the course to bankruptcy. Re-electing Moonbeam and not overturning AB 32 have cemented our course on a road to a great idealistic statist experiment. I can only hope that the fast approaching fiscal train wreck will serve as a warning for the rest of country.
CARB is an example of the worst of the worst. Unelected bureaucrats, with no real world experience and with minds educated into a politically correct box, dictating how we choose to live our lives? I want to fight this. Not because I’m crazy. But, because I know they are wrong. Their scam can not stand up to the truth.
I don’t have a choice. All of my family is here (and has been here for generations). My livelihood is here. And I don’t want to leave. My only choices at this point are to oppose the bureaucratic juggernaut or give up (i.e. move out). I’m not ready to leave quite yet.
Case 1: A company builds a car that is tested and gets 20 mpg. Company submits specs to CARB that claims car gets 33 mpg.
Case 2: Scientist submits testimony to CARB that says CO2 is not a major driver of changes in Earth’s temperature.
Rate each of the above as false information with regard to knowingly, willfully, false, and material. Then prove it.
I wonder how this law will stand up against the First Amendment Rights:
[quote]Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [b]or abridging the freedom of speech[/b], or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, [b]and to petition the government for a redress of grievances[/b].[/quote]
You should take this opportunity and use it back against the.
We all know where the “false” and “knowingly” information usually comes from.
Intention is quite easy to prove nowadays (money, money, money).
899 said
“There’s a reason why actors should never pursue political careers: They’re actors.”
Shouldn’t that read
“There’s a reason why actors should never be allowed to pursue political careers: They’re actors.”?
Equally applies to Film Directors too. Will Jim Cameron try? Oh dear!
True, Hank, but think of the mass exodus of people leaving California and spilling over into Nevada and points eastward once their economy buckles. Now that’s a scary thought!
This might have been said above, but it bears repeating:
This is how totalitarianism is creeping its way into the USA
Please America, FIGHT for the freedom that is your birthright!
[d]
What does this mean, legally?
In any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board, no person may knowingly and willfully do any of the following when transacting any business with or communicating in any manner with the Board or the Board’s staff…
Does this website constitute a “communication” with CARB? I don’t mean to be facetious; my question is perfectly reasonable. How far does CARBo (Typhoid) Mary intend to take it?
Let them. Use it and turn it against them. As you know, science is vague. Skeptics, by nature will use more affirmative statements, because we don’t assert things unless there is reason to assert. Imagine if the Himalayan glacier melt statements, or the Amazon sensitivity statements made their way to CARB. Utter jibberish and falsities. That’s precedent. Expose and use. As this issue dies(CAGW), and it is, albeit slowly and loudly, they will become more shrill and extreme. No worries on our side, many worries on theirs if this comes to pass.
My 2 cents.
Wow! This is like the Great Canadian Human Rights Star Chamber er Commission.
Brent in Calgary
the australian govt wood love this law if it gets through ,there all tomato heads all red through and through
Well, I look forward to the first political prisoners in the state of California.
But just as with Iraq, I don’t think we have thought this through to the end-game.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who truly believes that the planet will fry from our CO2. As the public rejects mitigations while scientists keep alarming, what do we expect these converts to say? “Oh well, it’s either individual freedom & democracy or survival of the planet. These are their only choices – what do you think they will say? “Oh well, freedom trumps planet’s survival, so I and my children will just lie down here and wait to die.” What would you do to save your children? In our history, many have laid down their lives for far smaller causes.
In Australia, Clive Hamilton, Green candidate already proposed suspending democracy, with hardly a protest. The UN openly talks world government without much mention of democracy. From a Warmist point of view, this all makes perfect sense.
We need to explain that warmists can not go around convincing people that skeptics are killing their children, without being responsible for the the inevitable violent political consequences.
I’d like to offer a small ray of hope here. I’m the same Roger E. Sowell referred to in the post above. I’m an attorney licensed in California, and we attorneys live for such contests as this new regulation will most likely provide. Mandatory disclaimer: nothing written above, nor in this comment is intended to be, nor is it, legal advice. Anyone requiring legal advice should consult a qualified attorney. Should this comment be accepted and posted on this blog, it is merely a private opinion discussing general aspects of a legal issue.
In a criminal case, for each element of the alleged crime, the prosecution must offer admissible evidence for and prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, if any element cannot be adequately proven, there can be no conviction. That is the reason I chose to focus on the “false” requirement, as that one will be very difficult to prove for the reasons I gave above.
An element of a crime, in this context, is each thing that must be proven for the accused person to be convicted of the crime. What I wrote in the post above actually referred to the Federal criminal statute, not the text of the California proposed regulation. The proposed regulation does not refer to Knowingly or Willfully.
However, there is the issue of whether the communication to CARB was a statement, or was it a question, or an opinion? Also, was the communication actually a fact, or was it dressed in language to indicate there are a range of uncertainties?
The proposed statute also uses the word fraudulent, which has in itself a long list of elements that must be proven. In short, a charge of fraud is very difficult to prove because the accused’s intent must be proved.
However, I agree with commenters above who wrote that this regulation could have the effect of intimidating dissenters such that they will not speak or communicate to CARB. That fact, alone, could result in the law being challenged in court as a chilling effect on what should be Free Speech under the U.S. Constitution.
It would be an interesting case, as even if all the other elements are proven to the appropriate legal standard, the “false” element may be a matter of opinion, not fact. When reputable scientists disagree, which one is to be labeled “false,” and the other “fact?” When one group agrees, and they are scientists, is another group of non-scientist dissenters not allowed to speak? The entire Climategate scandal illustrates this point. If non-scientists were muzzled, where would we be?
What is required is some brave organization, or person, who is willing to risk incarceration if convicted, to make the case before CARB that their IPPC-following science is wrong. The 60’s are upon us again. Many a protester went to jail in the 60’s in the USA to prove the strength of their beliefs.
Where does the CARB get-off believing that the public may not “petition the government” as a 1st amendment right? And just when did the “government” get to say what is a “dishonest statement” or otherwise suppress free speech?
That hasn’t been my experience. Quite the contrary. I have attended countless “public meetings” as a representative of the federal government . Many of these occurred during a period when I had been loaned to the Department of Defense to manage the development, testing, and operation of a system to destroy armed chemical weapons.
Many of these meetings were to get public feedback prior the destruction of explosively configured chemical weapons near heavily populated/highly sensitive areas. Two of these projects involved declared national emergencies in or near major cities. Agents involved included some of the deadliest know to man (sarin, mustard, and VX).
The meetings were held for very good reasons – the public had the right to know what we planned to do and to voice ANY objections they might have. It was not at all unusual for the public to voice serious concerns. Occasionally, I knew the person making a remark was being “knowingly dishonest”. But, my personal/professional opinions was not relevant nor should they have been. Whatever, the “agenda” of the opposition; government officials do not have the right to suppress opposing views. That’s simply not how democracy works.
The arrogance of the CARB is mind boggling. As a public servant, I am thoroughly disgusted
Regards, Kforestcat.
Thanks to Anthony and all of you who have made this and other great climate truth websites a place of learning, truth and honesty. It is often difficult and sometimes feels like a full time job trying to keep up will the flow of information and has kept me awake at night looking for the answers, so I can only imagine how much hard work has gone into the fantastic articles and comment’s made by contributors. It has driven me and given me hope to keep facing the AGW gang.
OK, enough of the strokes now to some meat?
We were warned, and we warned the people of California but billionaires and movie directors bought the day with dirty green money.
HERE WAS THE HEADS UP ON WHAT WAS COMING FROM CARB!
Thanks to: Co2 INSANITY – Posted – OCT 02 2010
IF THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA VOTE TO KEEP AB 32 THIS WILL ONLY EMPOWER CARB MORE.
They have based regulations upon data from a supposed PH d who it turns out has a mail-order degree, better known as fraud, read here. Don’t dare to disagree with them or it may cost you your job like this poor fellow, read here. Many refer to them as the “Smog Nazis” and it’s an appropriate title as far as I’m concerned. They are in the process of and will eventually drive a lot of businesses out of California to other states where they don’t have to deal with over-regulation.
If California keeps heading down this path there may not be anyone around to pay the taxes that pay their salaries. It’s already costing jobs, read here. While that would be a fitting end to them, why sit and do nothing and let them ruin a whole state when they can be cut off now?
Do you want to know more about CARB? Here’s some information about this onerous group and some of the loony things they want to do to California?
If the citizens of California vote to keep AB 32 in force THIS WILL ONLY EMPOWER THEM MORE. The government is berserk enough already and sinking into insanity territory because they keep catering to the libtard and greentard agendas. Want to stop it? Vote yes on 23 and let’s buy some time to take a better look at reality.
For full article go to:
http://co2insanity.com/2010/10/02/climate-dictatorships-arising-from-agw-ashes/
……no person may knowingly and willfully do any of the following when transacting any business with or communicating in any manner.
(1) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
(3) make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; or
(4) omit material facts from a communication with an intent to mislead.
Does this mean that you are not permitted to use “tricks to hide the decline”?
I’m an outside, and I find it curious, the double standards of the US. There goes the US with its invasive security at airports (TSA & the naked body scanners) – where everyone is treated as a criminal. And now the threat to (effectively) lock up those with a dissenting view.
In places like Burma or Zimbabwe, its clear who the tyrants are and the US makes a song-n-dance about democratic freedoms. And in its own backyard the US gives every impression of turning into a petty police state.
Ah lurve the smell ahve hypocrisy in tha morning!
Why in the hell does CARB even exist? No other state needs a CARB, which sucks the better part of a billion bucks ($759 million) from California’s budget every year to duplicate what the federal govt already does (unfortunately). This is without taking into account the millions its extreme regulations cost California residents and businesses every year. Eliminating CARB: What a great way to pare a costly, useless, and egregiously invasive entity from California’s budget.
There is something about unelected bureaucratic organisations, which once may have had a purpose and now do not, that turn them into perpetual growth machines that:
1. Are hostile to business
2. Continually spew out pointless, expensive rules and regulations
3. Try and place themselves above the law and immune from criticism
4. Become ever more expensive, top heavy with fat cat bureaucrats
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, become bureaucrats. Those who have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how the real world functions, become chief bureaucrats.
CARB and the European Commission are exactly the same: administered by highly intelligent, but highly incompetent, people with their own agenda of business destruction.