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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What goes around comes around.
In the not so distant past there were many battles to divorce religion from politics.
Now politics has created a new religion.
The result is inevitable.
Just look at history if you can find any history books.
Are n’t THEY contravening the US Constitution 1st Ammendment? HOW CAN THIS BE? ‘The science is settled?’…’ We’ve got you on our list?’…’Sack that editor?’ (CRU emails.)…Where are the lawyers in support of democratic free speech, where, oh, where have they gone?
What would Stalin do?
This is pure comedy. This isn’t a reality series is it? Unbelievable.
CARB: “LALALALALA we can’t hear you!”
Lol.
It looks as if some of the nuttier folk in California want to be a small eco-fascist state? Perhaps the rest of you more sensible Americans fence it off, build a ‘berlin’ wall or whatever – and ignore them! Mind you, I would give the ‘good’ general public there the chance to leave first! I just feel sorry for the normal folk burdened with that kind of state government…….those that stay can expect their lives to be hell!
CARB needs to be completely de-funded. We have 50 states in the US. 49 of them get along just fine without an Air Resources Board and California can too. The problem is that the governor taking office this January is the one who created it last time he was governor so there is little chance of anything happening from his office. The legislature should completely de-fund this bureaucracy.
This knowingly-false meme is something Monbiot harps on too. These greenshirts dwell so exclusively in their echo chambers that they think that the counterpoints-to-skeptics found on warmist sites are the last word on the matter, and that anyone who isn’t persuaded is a denier. They don’t realize how many layers to the onion-of-climate there are.
If I lived in California I would be tempted to write an open letter to CARB, containing something like “There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has ever, or will in the future, significantly change the Earth’s climate”. If that forced legal proceedings they would have to produce evidence, and there is none.
A golden opportunity?
Note from Germany:
Unbelievable!
This kind of law was one basis of the NAZI/Hitler regime,
the US fortunately liberated us from.
May be it comes back to us again: Green dictatorship.
I usually use an expression “Carbonari” to denominate believers in the artificial “carbon scare”. A lot of people take it amusing. (Each one who knows basic history is familiar with the historical Carbonari movement.) Using the CARB abbreviation they directly ask to be called with the name.
Climatology is moving dangerously down the avenue of *Crimethink”
from the Newspeak dictionary, (1984, George Orwell)
crimethink – To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death…. The essential crime that contains all others in itself.”
Here’as the complete dictionary
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
and of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
Sounds like this could back fire badly. I’m not that familiar with US law but wouldn’t any action by CARB end up in a real court? You know the sort of court that requires actual evidence rather than endlessly repeating “feel good” sound bites.
I notice of late that the alarmist message is a general one “it’s happening faster than we thought” neatly avoiding any specifics like what “it” actually refers to. In a court this wouldn’t work.
Ah, yes but how they must find it to be a true beauty that they would try to mimic it themselves . . . all hail he Chines communist system.
We make flimsy policy as we see fit as we please. Period.
If you want to change the policy, or if you do not want said policy, please support it with facts and empirical evidence. If you should fail to support your whining and ranting foul mouth crap with facts and empirical evidence (or if we just don’t happen to like the color of the graphs that day) know this you slime filled creeping capitalist vermin for anti-government demagogue propagandistic rebel, we stamp 30 in your forehead–30 meaning 30 years in the slammer you evil critter!
Please have a nice day. Exit to the left. And do take our new brochure if you please.
Jimmy Haigh (20 Nov., 6:08) wrote “The only thing politicians are interested in (well, apart from money and power) is their seat. Fortunately in a democracy we (still) have the power to get rid of these idiots.”
Too right, Jimmy! The battle for public opnion on Global Warming is vital, and has been going our way since Climategate erupted (damp squib though that was, but hey, it worked). The rational folks who visit WUWT are often flabbergasted that AGW pseudoscience has become so influential; the facts so obviously twisted and spun to serve a political agenda. But it was ALWAYS political, ever since Hansen turned the aircon off before a 1988 Senate Committe hearing, and even before that.
An honest scientist would rather have his pet theory blown away by contrary evidence, and even find that evidence himself, than have a false theory gain currency only to later flop. The bunch of gravy-train neoapocalyptic numpties who practice Climatography are wicked charlatans; latter-day Lysenkos whose place in the history of science will be in its Hall of Shame.
Be ye not dismayed! Even if the dark forces of Gore manage to subvert the facts for years to come, the truth will out! The pesky planet, blithely unaware of the debate raging in a very thin layer on its surface, will continue to obey the laws of physics.
Here’s my guess at the final collapse of AGW. Some world leader in the near future will get stuck in a blizzard, will turn to his/her entourage and say the magic words: “Sod this fer a game o’ sojers!”
I’m wondering how it will play out if it is found that NOAA, GISS, the TEAM (be they within or without California), TV and movie producers, actors, writers, will be subject to the proposed law when it is shown that the offer of evidence for CARB regulations is based on false evidence.
An example being the manipulation of temperature data from properly or improperly sited stations as shown by Anthony’s survey. Will the feds be exempt from CARB rules? State funded university researchers? High profile political donors…or actors?
The funniest aspect of this is the double edged sword it creates. Submissions will have to be open to full evaluation of their validity…meaning the data, methodology, and computer programs must be open to full public scrutiny.
If NYC had such rules, Hansen were a target with his Hudson River forecast 20 years ago. Instead of complaining about it, we should help the bureaucracy and name the wrongsayers … Just kidding
Fascism writ large. As history tells us repeatedly, there is only one way to deal with that and it doesn’t involve playing them at their own game. Mr Sowell perhaps needs a reality check.
As Jimmy Haigh said re – Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties
“Anthony, are you going to their workshop to voice your complaints? After all it’s only about 2 hr drive.”
“REPLY: If I can, yes.”
I’ve just hit the tip jar to help pay for the gas.
Go get ‘em, Anthony!
Me too.
RexAlan
Nobody sued CARB for those 350% exaggeration yet?
For victory of evil it is enough, when good people do nothing.
California’s ‘Governator’ has given up on his ambition to be president of the USA and is now, according to an article in the UK Guardian of yesterday, to be a leading conservationist when his stint as the Ruinator of California is over!!
The land of the free? Where did that idea go?
Anthony, you HAVE to get out of Kalifornia before the place implodes and form a black hole…
The Governator:
“Last year we had a tremendous setback because some of the science and some of the numbers were manipulated and that is very damaging because it gives the other side a way in,” Schwarzenegger told his summit this week.
http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10800853
Who gets prosecuted?
Everytime I read something like this, I think of Robin Warren and Barry Marshall.
In the 80’s they were viewed as crackpots and lunatics, even thrown physically out of some medical symposiums. In 2005, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine.