The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty.

first-amendment

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

would not proof be needed to verify an untruth?

skorrent1

No, just bring charges and tie you up in court til you bleed dry.

Gunga Din

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.

Dems B. Dcvrs

Precisely, this is not about Justice or Truth. It is about Intimidation by Government. It is Fascism.

Redneck

– most people who invoke science don’t know anything about statistics

…. or science.

Redneck

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.

MarkW

A general rule of politics is that any law will do the opposite of what it’s name states.

MarkW

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.

Redneck

welcome to communist China.
Time to join the local militia and defend the constitution.

benofhouston

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.

Doug in Calgary

Guess I’d better book my next Disney experience in Florida… I’d get arrested by the Thought Police in California.

JohnKnight

“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 . .

simple-touriste

“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.

simple-touriste

“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.

Farmer Ted.

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.

TRM

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/#

higley7

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.

Goldrider

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.

AllyKat

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. 🙁

mario lento

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.

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.

zoology

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.

Sparky

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

V. eng

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.

MarkW

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 –

Logos_wrench

It should be more than apparent now why Hillary cannot be in a position to appoint more kooks to the SCOTUS.

Bryan A

My dawg once suffered from Scootus

Goldrider

. . . and I’d vote for your dawg before I’d vote for Hillary!

Tim

First it is AGW and next? What about creating a scientific backing for socialism/communism and then making it illegal to oppose?

MarkW

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.

BFL

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/

AllyKat

Well, there are some special snowflakes (and a former communications professor, IIRC) from Mizzou who have experience setting up media-free safe spaces…

hanelyp

Soviet enforcers had an advantage, a largely disarmed opposition.

Tim

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” .

MarkW

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.

Goldrider

If they come for my bacon, that’s when I’m takin’ the flintlock down off the wall!

AllyKat

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

Max

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.

lance

that would the ‘wake up’ call to them!

Bryan A

Although I am a 5th generation native born and thereby have a right to say so, Crazyfornia government needs an enema

Bubba Cow

they are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels – a lot imported from out of state
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA

george e. smith

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

John Harmsworth

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!

Ryan

Let’s add the sale of anything made of plastic as these items are made from oil.

Merv

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.

Anthony Hedayat

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.

CD in Wisconsin

#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.

Jtom

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..

CD in Wisconsin

@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.

markl

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”.

simple-touriste

“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?

markl

simple-touriste commented: “…Maybe voters just don’t have any choice ….”
They do, they make the choices.

South River Independent

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.

South River Independent

markl, no. It is “for the children,” except for those sacrificed (aborted) on the altar of privacy.

MarkW

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.

benofhouston

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”.

John Harmsworth

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.

Sleepalot

This article fails to name and shame the authors of the Bill.

Tom in Florida

“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?

Bryan A

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.

Sparky

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.

R.S.Brown

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.

Gabro

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…

Tom in Florida

Welcome to Florida, the land of no state income tax, homestead exemptions and huge alligators.

+1

gnomish

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.

george e. smith

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

rocdoctom

How many scientists in the California Senate? I’m guessing none is the correct answer.

Alan Robertson

Nay Sir, this legislation sounds as if it were drafted by those who’ve called themselves “climate scientists” these past few years.

Owen

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.

Marcus

…Ah, good ole’ California…the land of fruits and nuts !

MarkW

California is proof that the US is sloped to the west. All the fruits and nuts roll there.

BillyV

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.

MarkW

Not going. Gone.

And Jefferson wept…

Strange that some Americans only now begin to realize that they live in the totalitarian state.

TA

We’ll know in about nine months.

Alan Robertson

Think we’ll get to November, do ye?

gnomish

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?

Dale Muncie

They will stop at nothing!

H.R.

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…

TA

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.

benofhouston

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.

benofhouston

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.

Mark T

Don’t be fooled. Sanders’ Socialism is every bit as tyrannical as Stalin’s Communism. The difference is only semantic.

Hugs

Again, why do you call totalitarians ‘liberal’, as in ‘liberty’?
They are radical, not liberal.

MarkW

A communist is a socialist who’s in a hurry.

Gabro

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.

AllyKat

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.

Louis

“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?

MarkW

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?

MarkW

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.

TA

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.

Owen in GA

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!)

John Harmsworth

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.

Bryan A

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

MarkW

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.

Louis

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.

commieBob

I thought the constitution was the supreme law of the land.

Kevin Angus

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

Goldrider

Somebody, please send the link to this to Donald Trump!!!

TA

The U.S. Constitution *is* the law of the land, and this California law will not stand the test.

benofhouston

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…

Gamecock

‘The U.S. Constitution *is* the law of the land’
Explain the Volstead Act.

commieBob

E.M.Smith says: June 2, 2016 at 3:37 pm
The problem is the tens of thousands of lives ruined while the first test case works up to the supreme court over a decade…

You’re right. The whole point of SLAPP suits is that being dragged into court is the punishment.

… a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. wiki

Even if you win, you lose.

Duster

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.

commieBob

Duster says: June 2, 2016 at 5:38 pm
… the Bill of Rights is intended … to protect individuals from … the tyranny of the mob.

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.

MarkW

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.

JohnWho

““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.

Kevin Angus

““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!

commieBob

Good point. Can the bill be used to go after those who have made failed alarmist predictions?

Gerard van Rijswijk

Can the legislation be used to prosecute warmists for false claims?

MarkW

Bills passed by leftists only apply to their enemies. Never themselves.

benofhouston

No, because in the text they declare the truth itself.

Hugs

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.

MarkW

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.

gnomish

respect to Sci or Fi. another commenter i appreciate.

JP Miller

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.

Marcus

…As an Agnostic person, I agree with you… 1,000%

JP Miller

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.

gnomish

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 .

TA

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.

Dave in Canmore

“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.

“said the NRC during the Fukushima Daiichi accident.”
S-T let me clear this up. First, the US NRC does not regulate Japan. Second, it was not the NRC is was an anti-nuke political appointee to the as head NRC commissioner by Obama. His conduct was irresponsible and international fearmongering.
The policies concerning spent fuel storage of that commissioner, Obama, DOE, and the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have reject by Federal Courts with a strong rebuke that the president is not above the law.
I want to thank Jane Fonda for her generous contribution to closing the nuke plant I worked at in California. Those eventually led to moving to another state.
We are much happier because we move. California is no longer a good place to live and raise children.
However, if the first amendment can not stand up to this silliness, it would have been dead along time ago.

MarkW

Let me see if I have this right.
Not only are they outlawing disagreement with the government, they are retroactively going to punish those who disagreed with the government even prior to the passage of this law?
That would violate an entirely different portion of the US Constitution.

Said Constitution having been written by “old, dead white guys.” Haven’t you heard? It’s a “living document” (and probably not even available online), so Our Dear Leader has declared it null and void. Just ask him, if you can catch him between golf tee-times. Besides, you didn’t build that…

Gerald Machnee

The oil companies should all stop selling gas and oil for a week to start with.

MarkW

The states surrounding CA need to shut down all power lines into that state.

Joel Snider

Unfortunately, one of them is Oregon, which is offended that California has beaten them to it (or perhaps because they’ve trumped the climate book ban in their schools). The others are Nevada and Arizona.

Definitely. And why not all plastic products too.

James of the west

Just add a boilerplate paragraph at the end of every climate related statement of fact and skepticism…….
In accordance with the laws of California – it is humans what dun it and CO2 is bad mkay.

Hats off...

The gravy train has long since extinguished it’s supply of traditional fuel. This is simply an effort to keep the gravy train rolling forward just a little bit further and a little bit longer before it runs out of steam.

AllyKat

Let us hope that the solar panels and wind turbines running the gravy train go the way of their siblings. And let us really hope that we are not the birds in this metaphor.

David L. Hagen

Evidence and Uncertainty versus Consensus?
Will California uphold the Rule of Law and the Scientific Method?
Will objective evidence count against the “consensus”?
Steve McIntyre finds that out of 102 model runs of 32 models from 1979 to 2015:

a model run will be warmer than an observed trend more than 99.5% of the time;
will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.1 deg C/decade approximately 88% of the time;
and will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.2 deg C/decade more than 41% of the time.

– based on the evidence submitted by Dr. John Christy in his Feb. 2nd, 2016 evidence to Congress.
Will California recognize the essential Uncertainty of Science? per Richard Feynman.

Well I’m confused.
What business is there in this great big world of our that gains an unfair advantage by disputing climate science?

davidmhoffer,
This is a clear admission that they’ve lost the scientific argument, no?
If they had any good, rational arguments supported by verifiable evidence showing that the rise in human emissions is the primary cause of global warming, they would be beating everyone over the head with that evidence 24/7/365.
But they have no credible evidence, and all empirical observations contradict their “carbon” scare. So instead of doing the stand-up thing and admitting they were wrong, they’re passing a law to punish anyone who doesn’t believe in their climate alarmism.
Now they’ll be looking to make examples of their political enemies. At taxpayer expense.

they’re passing a law to punish anyone who doesn’t believe in their climate alarmism.
My point is that I don’t think they did. Oh, they passed a law alright. But it doesn’t sound like it is actually applicable to anyone. For the law to be applicable, they must show that a company got an unfair advantage of their competition by disputing climate change. The law doesn’t penalize them for disputing climate change, it penalizes them for gaining an unfair advantage by disputing climate change. I can’t think of a company that this would apply to.
Let’s suppose that Exxon disputed climate change. Exactly how would that give them an unfair advantage over BP? Or Shell? What company is there that gets more business by disputing climate change while their competition doesn’t?
I think this is just for show. Sound and fury and all that. Can’t be practically applied to anyone.

gnomish

the point of it is to make paper that can be cited.
that enhances the platform and intimidates.
it’s all about intimidation
if reason isn’t ‘conspiracy ideation’ then let it be criminal
criminalizing somebody renders them indefensible.
it’s like hanging the ‘baby raper’ jacket on your target.
defenders flee; the target is isolated and demonized and can be abused freely- not just ‘with impunity’, but with moral sanction!
it’s not about science and never was. there never was any debate at all about anything – it was simply the ‘corrida de toros’ with picadors to weaken and tire and distract the intended victims.

Exxon might arguably gain an “unfair advantage” over some competitor that squanders, err, “invests” money in green energy in order to appease the weather, err, climate gods.

Sleepalot

Wind and Solar Farmers might claim Oil Co.s have an unfair advantage.

Dodgy Geezer

Er… perhaps someone with some understanding of the US legal system and politics would explain to us Europeans exactly what this bill is proposing?
As far as I can see it simply prohibits ‘unfair competition’ – which I take to mean illegally altering prices or some other breach of competition law. It is hard for me to see how that can be applied to ‘scientific evidence’ – which by its nature has to be discussed and examined.

MarkW

The bill is proclaiming that climate science denial is de-facto unfair competition.

John Harmsworth

Right now, causing climate change is not illegal. But denying you are is! How bizarre, how bizarre!
If you say, ” it’s hot out today because it’s sunny, not because I flew here from Cannes”, I guess that’s pretty self incriminating!

Jumbofoot

I’m reeling from this news!? Can someone who is well versed rebut each line of that bill (talking about the enumerated list of Section 2)? Has someone already done this? How about any of the think-tanks (CEI, Heartland, ?)? This is bad. It’s worse than we thought (really, this time). Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.
Thank you,
JPS
PS – Sorry for posting the whole thing below… (if that’s bad form Mods, please delete my post)
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) 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.
(2) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) states that the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases results in impacts that include the following:
(A) Changing temperature and precipitation patterns.
(B) Increases in ocean temperatures, sea level, and acidity.
(C) Melting of glaciers and sea ice.
(D) Changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events.
(E) Shifts in ecosystem characteristics, such as the length of the growing season, timing of flower blooms, and migration of birds.
(F) Increased threats to human health.
(3) Impacts and damages from emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change have been occurring for many years and will be felt from decades to centuries after those emissions have occurred. The USEPA states, “[b]ecause many of the major greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of years after being released, their warming effects on the climate persist over a long time and can therefore affect both present and future generations.”
(4) Reports and documentation published by researchers, public interest nongovernmental organizations, and media in recent years show that some fossil fuel companies were aware by the late 1970s of scientific studies showing that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion pose significant risk of harmful global warming. The reports and documents also indicate that by the mid-1980s fossil fuel company scientists were confirming in internal documents intended for company management that emissions from fossil fuels were contributing significantly to climate change, and companies were factoring global warming into their own business investments.
(5) By 1988, the scientific evidence of climate change and the significant risks it poses was widely communicated to the public and was confirmed in congressional testimony by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In that year, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the federal National Energy Policy Act of 1988 (House Resolution 5380, 100th Congress) was introduced in Congress in an effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Because of the highly public dissemination of information, congressional discussion, and extensive media coverage of the robust scientific evidence of the risks of continued burning of fossil fuel products, major fossil fuel producers knew or should have known the risks of continued burning of their products by 1988.
(6) More than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988, after the fossil fuel businesses knew of the harm their products might cause, and have substantially increased risks from climate change impacts to life, health, and property.
(7) Since at least 1989, published reports indicate that some of these same entities have put sustained and significant efforts and resources into creating public doubt on the science related to climate change caused by anthropogenic sources.
(8) Misleading and inaccurate information disseminated by organizations and representatives backed by fossil fuel companies, along with advertising and publicity casting doubt on scientific understanding of climate change, have led to confusion, disagreement, and unnecessary controversy over the causes of climate change and the effects of emissions of greenhouse gases. This type of misinformation, widely and broadly disseminated in the media, has long delayed public understanding of the risks of continuing to emit high levels of greenhouse gases, confused and polarized the public on the need to aggressively reduce emissions to limit risks from climate change, and increased damage to public safety, health, and property in California as well as nationally and globally.
(9) Scientific studies indicate that climate change impacts are occurring in California, causing significant damage to the economy, environment, and public health. In a 2013 report on climate change indicators, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment found that California is already experiencing serious and measurable impacts from atmospheric warming in the state’s weather, water systems, high wildfire frequency and intensity, plant and animal species health, and human health and morbidity.
(10) Climate change has been tied by scientists to the severity and intensity of the historically unprecedented and costly drought that California has been experiencing since 2011 that has resulted in communities running out of water, agricultural water cutbacks, and unprecedented groundwater use that has caused subsidence and a loss of storage capacity in the state’s critical aquifers.
(11) An independent bipartisan report, published in 2014, indicates that, by 2050, California will be suffering economic losses of tens of billions of dollars due to climate change-related impacts and that heat-related deaths could be twice the number of current traffic-related deaths annually by the late 21st century.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to retroactively revive and extend the statute of limitation for actions that may or may not be barred by the applicable statute of limitation existing before January 1, 2017, and that seek redress for unfair competition practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on those risks.

Bubba Cow

It also has not been worse than prior drought. The 1976? or so one was worse. Personal observation as I lived through both. BTW, rain this year is above average, yet the “drought monitor” page still shows dark red… “Drought” gets adjusted via the adjusted warmed temperatures in the Palmer Drought Index, so you can have above average rain and still call it a drought…

John Harmsworth

New headline-“California invokes EPA authority to stop free speech”

“New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics”
The bill as linked by the article doesn’t seem to do anything like that. It just adds a section to the code of civil procedure, so it isn’t about prosecuting anyone. And as far as I can see, it doesn’t even create cause for new civil actions. It just shifts a bar of statute of limitations to allow existing causes of action to be pursued more than four years later.

Read the actual statute and see my comment below.

Louis

Nick, did you miss this quote from the article:

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.

The Senate’s own analysis says the bill “explicitly authorizes” the AG to pursue skeptics based on “unfair competition.” It looks to me like they added a new category to the UCL and then shifted the statute of limitations to allow offenses that occurred before they were made illegal by this bill to be punished.
They are also turning the idea of “unfair competition” on its head. It will now be illegal to compete with the climate-change monopoly as it is defined by the state. Even in the realm of speech and ideas, skepticism is being make illegal. But what happens when an actual climate scientist makes a discovery that contradicts the current consensus? Will they be forbidden by the priests of Gaia, who currently run the state, to publish or announce their findings in California? Are we heading back to the middle ages? It seems that California progressives like the science the way it is. The last thing they want is for the science to “progress.”

No, I didn’t miss that quote. It explicitly authorizes the AG to pursue those claims. But it does not create a new class of claims. As the analysis also says, the UCL already:
“2) Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorneys, county
counsels and city attorneys to file lawsuits on behalf of
injured citizens.”

I don’t see any added effect here. But anyway, it isn’t about prosecuting skeptics, or anyone else. It’s about filing civil claims. And it isn’t about the realm of speech and ideas.

John Harmsworth

“It isn’t about the realm of speech and ideas”?
I gather you support this legislation, Nick?

Slipstick

Having read SB-1161 and the analysis on the California Legislative Information website, Nick Stokes’ characterization of the legislation is accurate and complete.

michael hart

Unfortunately, the “Stokes Shift” already has an entry in wikipedia.

John Harmsworth

The “Hypocrit polka”

Reed Coray

Nick. If as you say the intent of the new legislation is to “,,,just add a section to the code of civil procedure…” for the purpose of “…shifting a bar of statute of limitations…,” then why all the folderol (see the list provided by Jumbofoot, June 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm) about what the legislature finds and declares to be true? Anyone who doesn’t see the proposed legislature as an attempt to silence climate skepticism is blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. That includes you, Nick.

“why all the folderol”
I think it’s politics. Legislators are free to state a viewpoint too. Some will like it and vote for them, some not and won’t.
But the only thing this bill would mandate is the extension of a limitations period.

Reed Coray

Yeah Nick. You’re definitely right that politicians are “free to state a viewpoint too.” Normally they do so in speeches, not as part of legislation. You may be right about the limited mandate of the law. And you are probably right that: “It’s politics.” If it is, it’s the same kind of politics as practiced by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and their ilk. When, as we do now, we have a President who decides what laws he chooses to enforce and what laws he chooses to ignore, a tone is set that scares the he!! out of me. Lesser elected executives like the governor of California might follow his lead. Even if you’re right about the mandate of the law, the legislative wording preceding the mandate of the law gives an unscrupulous executive almost carte blanche to go after (i.e., prosecute) those whose views differ from his. The fix is simple, remove all references to “climate science” and limit the wording of the law to what you call its mandate–and extension of the statute of limitations.

Reed Coray

A comment I submitted seems to have gone into limbo. If that comment surfaces, it’s pretty much a repeat of what follows. Nick, you are right: “Legislators are free to state a viewpoint too”. However, they mostly do it in speeches, not as text in legislation. You may be right that the law’s mandate is limited to and extension of the statute of limitations. But if that were the intent of the law, there would be no verbiage regarding climate science. It would then make as much sense to include verbiage regarding the price of tea in China as it does to include verbiage regarding climate science. And you’re probably right that “It’s politics.” The same kind of politics as practiced by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez and their ilk. As I said before, in my opinion if you truly believe the proposed law is completely devoid of any attempt to silence climate skeptics, you’re blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. Your comment only confirms my opinion.

Reed Coray

A comment I submitted seems to have gone into limbo. If that comment surfaces, it’s pretty much a repeat of what follows. Nick, you are right: “Legislators are free to state a viewpoint too”. However, they mostly do it in speeches, not as text in legislation. You may be right that the law’s mandate is limited to an extension of the statute of limitations. But if that were the intent of the law, there would be no verbiage regarding climate science. It would then make as much sense to include verbiage regarding the price of tea in China as it does to include verbiage regarding climate science. And you’re probably right that “It’s politics.” The same kind of politics as practiced by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez and their ilk. I repeat, in my opinion if you truly believe the proposed law is completely devoid of any attempt to silence climate skeptics, you’re blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. Your response to my earlier comment only confirms my opinion.

u.k(us)

Umm, per Wiki :
The 2016 United States elections will be held (for the most part) on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. During this presidential election year, the President of the United States and Vice President will be elected. In addition, elections will be held for all 435 voting-member seats in the United States House of Representatives (as well as all 6 non-voting delegate seats) and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate.
They are all shaking in their boots 🙂
Gotta love it.

Eliza

If this goes thru WUWT could be closed down… be extremely wary

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ….”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
“I, … , do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
It is time to wake up Senators and Representatives, there seem to be domestic enemies to the Constitution of the United States.

Robert Ballard

You are correct about the requirement to affirm. The oath which you present is not in the Constitution, however, this shorter one is included in Article II: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

{It is time to wake up Senators and Representatives, there seem to be domestic enemies to the Constitution of the United States.}
I would hate to think you are just now realizing this S/F Seems to me the constitution has been misused and abused ever since the thing was ratified–now it is totally ignore–as a recent president said–“just a GD piece of paper”

I hate to admit that I´m just now starting to realize how bad it has become, I used to think so great of United States.
(I´m not a US citizen, so I might have an excuse).

Reasonable Skeptic

So if this gets passed, will Religions be on the hook because they “deceived or misled the public on the risks of ….” going to hell? We have no scientific evidence God exists.

markl

Jerry Brown strikes again. If this bill gets passed it won’t make it past the first trial without either being declared unconstitutional or going all the way to the Supreme Court . California is also the state that calls illegal aliens “Citizens of California”. Brown truly believes he can do anything he wants in California and get away with it.

Plants thrive with more CO2. People in temperate, subarctic and arctic zones want warmer winters. Warming in the tropics post 1950 has been minuscule. Who is against C02 fertilization, and human thriving in a modestly warmer world?

Well I hope they pass it. Then we can all start donating generous sums of money to Mr. Watts’ legal defense fund.
OK, maybe not. I wouldn’t wish that drawn out torture on anyone like Anthony.

LabUserNumberUnknown

“Deceived or misled”
Makes perfectly clear that those who know better should not lie to their investors or the public.

It is time to wake up, wise up, link up, take a stand together and speak up! Geoengineering Is The Primary Cause Of Global Climate Change Not CO2 http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=27876

WBWilson

Mods: Doreen’s comment and link to chemtrails should be removed.

I think those commenting here should read the text of the bill first. First the bill’s purpose is to ostensibly extend the statute of limitations by 4 years from 2017 giving the State AG or District Attorney until Jan 1, 2021 to pursue action that dates back as far as 2013. (The current limitation is 4 years)
On the surface, this appears rather innocuous. However, in my opinion (and I’m CDN not USA) what is FAR MORE FREIGHTENING are the statements that precede this extension. It starts “The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:”. What follows is 17 points (major and minor) of the CAGW manifesto and a number of them are not defensible by even the most liberal science.
I think that if the bill passes, the CAGW manifesto then becomes law and therefore it does not need to be proven. It also states that this was known to be true in 1989, so anyone disagreeing with the manifesto since 1989 is now breaking the law and subject to prosecution.

“I think those commenting here should read the text of the bill first.”
Yes.
“On the surface, this appears rather innocuous.”
Yes.
“CAGW manifesto then becomes law”
They seek to state the view of the legislature. That view doesn’t become law unless it is made binding on someone. This Bill doesn’t do that.

Law not binding? Nice one there… Try it on your next traffic ticket…

“Try it on your next traffic ticket”
A traffic ticket does not charge me with contravening the view of the legislature. It charges me with contravening specific provisions of the criminal law. This Bill makes no such provisions.

D. J. Hawkins

@Nick;
This bill does in fact make those views law. How thick can one individual be? Did someone hit you in the head with a brick recently???
From jumbofoot’s list above:
Item 2 establishes as fact, not subject to dispute, the list of harms.
Item 5 establishes as fact, not subject to dispute, that the the burning of fossil fuels causes the harms in (2) and the companies should have known that.
Items 7 and 8 establishes as fact, not subject to dispute, that there is an ongoing deliberate campaign to mislead the public.
Items 9, 10, and 11 establish as fact, not subject to dispute, certain harms already experienced by California and amazingly the harms that will be suffered in the future, not might.
Under this bill plaintiffs merely file the lawsuit and immediately collect the money, because all the elements you would normally need to establish as fact at trial have been preempted by the law.

Dems B. Dcvrs

” so anyone disagreeing with the manifesto since 1989 is now breaking the law and subject to prosecution”
California’s Brown Shirts (or is that Greenie Shirts) are more than welcome to come try and get me.

Fun? You assume the court will be rational.

Goldrider

As opposed to the Salem witch trials.

Reasonable Skeptic

Upon second thought. This is actually a good thing is in not?
“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,”
Isn’t this exactly what warmists are doing? A paper say “could” or “might”, but the media report it as “will” or “is”.

I don’t think so as the bill defines the “science”

michael hart

It sounds a bit like the Indiana Pi Bill of 1897.

Gunga Din

Many bogus USEPA regulations have come out of the “CaliforniaDreamin’EPA”.
“If the public can’t pronounce it, it must be bad and banned.”
(There was an Earth Day where people actually signed a petition to ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide!)
Now, showing as much sense, California wants to regulate opinions/conclusions at the expense of Freedom of Speech.
One of the beauties of Freedom of Speech is, if you spout garbage, nobody has to listen or pay attention to you.
Freedom of Speech is only a threat to the spouters who fear a contrary opinion being heard.
Here in the US, “Government” was formed as a means to defend Freedom of Speech (among others), not as a tool to suppress it.

Owen in GA

When I was a student in the physics department of a large southern school (back in the 1985-86 time frame) we sat outside the liberal arts college with a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide with a list of whereas’s that listed its lethal statistics. EVERY liberal arts major signed the petition, yet not one of the students at the engineering school or school of sciences signed. Mostly they just laughed. This was before all the social justice warrior excrement hit the campuses, I can’t imagine what the signers would be like now – there might be a riot over the injustice of it all.

TA

This *is* an act of desperation on the part of the Alarmists. And the temperatures keep dropping.