Readers may recall this story on WUWT:
Surreality: CARB contemplating a “skeptical science” regulation with penalties
I wrote that:
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.
It seems sunlight may have helped:
Their listserver message was a bit more descriptive:
From: owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov on behalf of wfell@arb.ca.gov
Sent: Fri 11/26/2010 1:00 PM
To: post-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov
Subject: arbcombo — POSTPONEMENT of Dec. 1 workshop to discuss possible false statement regulation
“The workshop scheduled for December 1st to discuss approaches to prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or its staff has been postponed to accommodate numerous requests for more background information about the purpose of the draft proposed rule. The workshop will be rescheduled after the New Year.
For more information, contact Will Brieger at:
wbrieger@arb.ca.gov
With no determined future date, is it possible this proposed rule may go the way of the dodo? Nah, this is CARB, they are determined to have this rule, public input or not. They just need to schedule a bigger room.
A low CARB diet would certainly be my preference.
CARB put up a paper a while back that showed ethanol cost twice the CO2 as straight oil, then Schwarzenegger made them take it down.
It’s safe to say that everything you read about CO2 and climate change is just lies.
What we have is a shortage of truth.
What fascists.
“Nah, this is CARB, they are determined to have this rule, public input or not. They just need to schedule a bigger room. ” Or a smaller room, in a more remote part of Ca., with less publicity? I suggest that CARB is the sort of politicised body that the phrase, “extremist authoritarian”, is made to measure for.
When a public issue generates intense negative interest, policy-makers employ the very old device of stall, delay, and wait, knowing that the public’s attention-span is short.
Kudos to you, Anthony, and keep shining the spotlight on them.
This is typical of governments that attempt to dictate rules for discussion of pathological science, as the Soviets did with Lysenko. CARB is attempting to limit the “facts” to be used in their rule making only to the junk science it chooses to promulgate. Next will come penalties and persecution for those who disagree with CARB’s politicized science.
[Snip. No insulting our host. ~dbs, mod.]
What a charade.
Great work Anthony, however keeping them honest will be a major challenge.
Christoph is quite right: this is fascism.
OK, the Communists do it too. Same bird, different feather.
. . a regulation similar to regulations used by federal agencies . .
Say what? Has anyone told the EPA? The SEC? NASA?
These agencies should be clogging the courts to ensure the integrity of the information they are getting, especially from some of their own employees.
Now that we’re “stuck” with AB32, it probably timely to figure out how to fix it so it can achieve something positive.
Starting with a public campaign to encourage the new Governor to replace the CARB board with a balanced decision making group is one of many opportunities.
Governor elect Brown stated during his campaign that he supported AB32 but not in its current form. This leads me to believe he can amend the piece of junk legislation with something more insightful.
The only question is how to get the information he needs to understand under his nose.
California seems determined to explore the outer reaches of progressive insanity. How far can the state keep moving while it’s off the rails? Not even Ahnold or Jewwy know.
tarpon says:
November 29, 2010 at 10:13 am
CARB put up a paper a while back that showed ethanol cost twice the CO2 as straight oil, then Schwarzenegger made them take it down.
Making a rule about false statements would appear to be a bit of a double-edged weapon in the environmental protection arena, would it not?
Accountability is a two-edges sword. Citizens should have the right to blow the whistle on CARB officials who make dishonest statements or submissions to the public and, by implication, to CARB as well. Perhaps if they realize this could boomerang on them they will drop this nonsense and stick to peer-reviewed, replicated scientific studies … NAH!
From the big ethanol plant engineering firm. apparently they deny it takes petrol to raise, harvest and brew corn.
http://icminc.com/ethanol/
Couldn’t this rule also work against false statements that CARB agrees with?
@John F. Hultquist: November 29, 2010 at 10:59 am
“. . a regulation similar to regulations used by federal agencies . .
Say what? Has anyone told the EPA? The SEC? NASA?”
This most likely refers to the Federal law at 18 U.S.C. 1001, which is used by the FBI, among others.
The wording of CARB’s proposed California regulation is almost a word-for-word copy of 18 USC 1001.
I want to know when somebody is going to do something about all of that rubbed-off carbon in the form of traction tread from all the vehicle tires; they have never been able to clean it up or to recycle it! It has to run into the millions of tonnes.
Isn’t there a strong earthquake due in CA? I don’t like to see people suffer but if the gods could focus the next one beneath the offices of CARB I would be grateful.
Good. I couldn’t be there 12/1.
After the New Year, with enough notice, I’ll figure out a way to get there.
John from CA – given Brown’s history, I would not expect anything positive to come out of anything he might do with, to, or for CARB.
I might be surprised, certainly I’ve been (negatively) surprised by the outgoing governor, but to mangle Damon Runyan, that’s not the way to bet.
Who determins what is a false statement? Would it end up in the courts? What if a ‘false’ statement is shown to come from inside CARB or a Warmist? These people never think about the law of unintended consequences.
CA state gummit is bankrupt. Cuts must be made. CARB is at the top of the list.
David Becker says: November 29, 2010 at 10:31 am
” Next will come penalties and persecution for those who disagree with CARB’s politicized science.”
This is the good part – let them try to show the real science is bad IN COURT!
The whole manmade global warming scam would have died years ago if the “debate” had been moved into a real courtroom where the junk-dealers would have to prove themselves, or not.
#
Billy Liar says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:07 am
Making a rule about false statements would appear to be a bit of a double-edged weapon in the environmental protection arena, would it not?
#
Tom Davidson says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:11 am
Accountability is a two-edges sword.
DBD says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:13 am
Couldn’t this rule also work against false statements that CARB agrees with?
#
Jimbo says:
November 29, 2010 at 11:47 am
Who determins what is a false statement? Would it end up in the courts? What if a ‘false’ statement is shown to come from inside CARB or a Warmist? These people never think about the law of unintended consequences.
######
The lefties have a whole cabinet of tools to make sure things only cut one way. They after all, control the press, so that can drive public attitude; they control the language, so they get to create the definitions used; and they pretty much control the court, so the can say what truth is. In the end expect nothing but the same blatantly selective enforcement of the law that we have already grown use to.