From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty.
A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.
Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a
“totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”
“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” asked Mr. Frank in a May 31 post.
“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161,” Mr. Frank said.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris belongs to a coalition of 17 state attorneys general that joined forces in March to pursue climate-change skeptics, starting with ExxonMobil.
The floor analysis cites as a rationale for the bill articles published last year by InsideClimate News and the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project accusing ExxonMobil of hiding its research on climate change, which the company has denied.
“By extending the statute of limitations, California has the opportunity to hold these companies fully accountable for their actions,” said the analysis.
The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change, stating that, “There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Walter Olson of the website Overlawyered called the bill “extraordinary,” adding that “the target is clearly public-issue advocacy.”
“Combined with the plans laid by California Attorney General Kamala Harris — part of the alliance of AGs that has sought to investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as ‘climate denial’— the bill would begin laying the legal groundwork for an astonishingly broad campaign of inquisition and, potentially, expropriation,” Mr. Olson said in a May 31 post.
====================================
This is mind blowing, they are suspending the statute of limitations with this language:
342.5.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017.
would not proof be needed to verify an untruth?
No, just bring charges and tie you up in court til you bleed dry.
Mann’s MO. His expenses don’t come out of his pocket.
Now the want the accuser’s expenses to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
Precisely, this is not about Justice or Truth. It is about Intimidation by Government. It is Fascism.
…. or science.
This unconstitutional law is being proposed by those who call themselves “Democrats”. This is overt fascism .
If the science was so certain it would not be necessary to make laws declaring it be the TRUTH.
Any law which has the word “truth” in it’s name is based on a lie.
A general rule of politics is that any law will do the opposite of what it’s name states.
From my early reading, it looks like merely disagreeing with the pronouncements of the state vis-à-vis climate change is sufficient proof of guilt.
welcome to communist China.
Time to join the local militia and defend the constitution.
That’s what this does. It eliminates the truth requirement for fraud by declaring what is truth.
Sheesh. You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines. Imagine the trouble that it would cause if you actually tried to pass a law making it illegal to question them. There’s an order of magnitude more certainty there.
You read good, Kemosabe.
Guess I’d better book my next Disney experience in Florida… I’d get arrested by the Thought Police in California.
“Sheesh. You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines.”
Many fake scientific thinkers around here don’t apply skepticism to anything with the label ‘vaccine’ on it, as far as I can tell. Disgusting blind faith in a word . .
“There’s an order of magnitude more certainty (with vaccines).”
And yet:
– vaccines aren’t tested like normal drugs
– there is no evidence that the flu vaccine is even useful at all
– there is overwelming proof that the Hep B vaccines cause MS
– the evidence of abominable side effects of vaccines is hidden
– doctors aren’t allowed by the boards to speak against the consensus position
– 99 % of proponents of vaccines are ignorant about all aspects of vaccines and regulations
– most people who invoke science don’t know anything about statistics
We routinely see that claim that studies show that some drug doesn’t cause some disease. But all the study shows is nothing: no effect at all or an effect that doesn’t reach STATISTICAL significance. Most people don’t know anything about science or statistics and don’t understand that.
“You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines”
“Barely”, but you STILL can get these abominable predatory/fascist laws with the support of the pro-business anti-CAGW crowd (Forbes, junkscience, etc.) and the leftist “pro-science” CAGW “anti-evolution den@r” crowd (SkS, Scienceblog, etc.).
Did you say anything when they came after “anti vax” aka the people who just wanted to apply the scientific method, or even usual medical principle “first do no harm” to vaccine? Where were you?
Sorry, I think you got what you deserve if you allowed vaccine criticism to be suppressed by law (medical “ethics”).
Ah ah ah. I am dancing on your trial. (No really.)
See something say something applies here.
See suppressing of dissent, say something.
Whereupon penalties will be levied against firms which also operate outside the state of California. i.e. the State of California intends to gain funds from external sources.
This should be interesting to watch. The reaction could be weighty.
benofhouston (and any others with a desire to get both sides of the vaccine issue) may want to start here with and open letter by Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology.
https://truthkings.com/immunologist-shreds-sb277s-logic/#
I think what they are trying to say is that the truth and facts are Unfair Competition. It’s sad when the honest are in power and the honest are the victims. Far from what the Founding Fathers ever imagined.
This is just straight-up, 100%, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Let them try it. Let it get all the way to the Supreme Court, to be shot down in flames. They know it would never stand; it’s just an intimidation bill, so people will think twice about being seen not giving obeisance to the Green meme. Any constitutional lawyer, hell, even the ACLU would be able to shit-can this doozy with one read. And given the “evidence” for CAGW, I don’t see a route for them to ever enforce it.
Yes, but consider who is on the Supreme Court, and what the ideology of the new ninth justice will be. We already have four who vote in lockstep, and decide what they want to rule before actually considering what the Constitution or law says. The new justice will likely provide the majority vote. It will be worse than when Kennedy was the “swing” vote: he occasionally would make a sensible ruling.
We are doomed, and that statement may not be hyperbole. 🙁
AllyKat:
It’s hard to know where you stand, could you be specific or ellaborate? Judges should apply the law and follow the Consitution. If they decided they would follow the law, before hand, it does not much matter. Judges should be loathe to legislate from the Bench. That is precisely what Justice Roberts did. That’s extraordinary and it was wrong.
The only time Justice Roberts legislated from the bench was when he decided that he was going to ignore the plain language of ObamaCare and ruled based on what he presumed the legislators meant, rather than what they wrote.
Markw: “The only time Justice Roberts legislated from the bench was when he decided that he was going to ignore the plain language of ObamaCare and ruled based on what he presumed the legislators meant, rather than what they wrote.”
I quote Tom Lehrer:
“Once all the Germans, were warlike and mean, but that could never happen again
“We taught then a lesson in 1918, and they’ve hardly bothered us since then.”
If Shell, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobile and Chevron found it impossible to operate in Cali, and shut off supplies, a supermajority of Californians would stop the state government’s lunacy pretty quickly. Governor Brown could grab the microphone and proclaim, “Stopping fossil fuel burning is better for our state,” but I think this would fail.
I think a short period of realising that the national media is completely reliant on electricity, and trying to get your views across using town criers will quickly change Governor Browns viewpoint
Gov Brown’s family fortune was made in corrupt representation of Indonesian Oil (read Royal Dutch Shell fellow travelers) Democrats have a very dirty underbelly in the history of fleecing the public in the name of environmentalism
Problem for them is the production wells they have in CA and the refineries there. Lots of capital tied up and also supplies for other states. The interstate commerce effects will get this in Federal Courts quickly but this is in the 9th circuit, the most liberal – leftist in the country. Then it will be off to the Supreme Court, making the filling of the empty seat critical.
So let CA try this, it’ll be fun to watch. It will also be a disaster for the economy of California and surrounding states.
The most liberal, and also the most over ruled. By far.
Not at all. The cost of mounting a defense would be prohibitive.
My senator is Bill Harris, he just got a letter from me. Thanks for the heads up.
that would require you to argue point of law, not point of fact – If the law says everyone must carry a plate of custard to protect them from space clowns, you can’t easily (or cheaply) argue that space clowns don’t exist – the court is there to examine whether you were or were not carrying your plate of custard. If the facts say you weren’t.. you have broken the law –
It should be more than apparent now why Hillary cannot be in a position to appoint more kooks to the SCOTUS.
My dawg once suffered from Scootus
. . . and I’d vote for your dawg before I’d vote for Hillary!
First it is AGW and next? What about creating a scientific backing for socialism/communism and then making it illegal to oppose?
We can always do what the soviets did. Just declare that anyone who disagrees with the government is mentally incompetent and lock them up.
When that doesn’t work, assign them to work camps in remote regions, where reporters aren’t permitted.
Or most any Islamic country, perhaps soon to be that kind of (Islamic) Europe, oh wait already headed there (maybe we be next):
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/27/you-tweet-a-lot-watch-your-tone-cops-threaten-dutch-man-for-opposing-govt-mass-migration-plans/
Well, there are some special snowflakes (and a former communications professor, IIRC) from Mizzou who have experience setting up media-free safe spaces…
Soviet enforcers had an advantage, a largely disarmed opposition.
No no, reporters will be permitted. There they can craft wonderfully inspiring stories about all the “professional help” that those delusional deniers are getting so that eventually they can rejoin society. And on the front gate a big welcoming sign that says “Consensus macht frei” .
Like that reporter from the NYTs that won a Pulitzer from writing that there was no famine in Russia, even while millions were dying around him.
“Broad consensus” If that is all it takes to remove the right of free speech, heaven help you.
If they come for my bacon, that’s when I’m takin’ the flintlock down off the wall!
Just make sure you do not put a scope and a bayonet on the flintlock, or you might get charged for having an “assault weapon”.
+1
I suggest that since CO2 is so deadly and the suppliers so evil that the only safe thing to do eliminate all ;fossil’ fuel delivery and use in Calif rather than risk future law suits. If the people of this left coast want to save the world they can start with thenselves.
that would the ‘wake up’ call to them!
Although I am a 5th generation native born and thereby have a right to say so, Crazyfornia government needs an enema
they are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels – a lot imported from out of state
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA
Well I think California should first immediately prohibit the sale, or use of fossil fuels such as petroleum and any products made from petroleum or natural gas, or of any contrivance or machine capable or operating on fossil fuel products. Once such products become illegal to sell for use in California, or sold from California to other locations, then it is ok to pursue prosecution of anyone advocating their use.
g
Let’s expand on that approach. How can it be possible to produce or sell these products while being aware that they are destroying the planet? Are they destroying the planet? The law says they are; ignorance of the law is no excuse, ergo anyone who sells or uses these products must be prosecuted.
Once the state loses a few cases I would assume they will be fighting suits for malicious prosecution like ants at a picnic. If they have any recall procedure, there’ll never be a better political career to destroy than this junior Nazi. Disgusting!
Let’s add the sale of anything made of plastic as these items are made from oil.
How will the rich get around in their private jets that hold 5 people and then drive away from the private hangers in there Prius. Unbelievable!!!! I would love for some of these folks to work in any town in America and see how real people live
and survive….they are so out of touch with reality it’s laughable.
Yes, they are out of touch with reality but we have allowed them to be in our Halls of government. This is what makes them dangerous. These people must be removed from office…and not soon enough.
#Max: The punishment that needs to be metted out here should go to the elected officials in Sacramento if this becomes law, not to California’s economy by denying the state its need for fossil fuels.
If this does become law, I would be quite surprised if the constitutionality of it is not challenged…and challenged all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. However, the very idea that some of the SCOTUS judges might agree with the law is an abomination as is the potential law itself.
The road to totalitarianism is paved not just with the greed for power and control, but with ignorance as well.
Since the majority of voters elected those officials in Sacramento and are the only ones capable of removing them, then it is entirely reasonable to deny the entire state the use of fossil fuels. Businesses should be advised to move too bordering states.
And, like the road to Hell, the road to totalitarian democracy is paved with good intentions, and decorated with the nation’s flag..
@jtom: No. Just stop and think for a minute.
What is going to happen if you deny the entire state access to fossil fuels? The state’s economy (the largest in the union I believe) is probably going to decline sharply if it does not totally shut down. What will happen then? The effects of that shutdown is going to reverberate throughout the entire U.S. economy and will probaby send us into a deep recession. The stock market will crash, and we ALL lose considerable value in our IRAs and 401Ks and other investments. Layoffs with begin and unemployment will shoot up nationwide.
I understand it when you say that the majority in California are responsible for what is happening in Sacramento because the majority put these irrepsonsible officials in office to begin with. However, I would like to suggest to you that you should not succumb to the same thought process issue that leftists are regularly accused of: Allowing your emotions to shutdown your ability to think critically and rationally and draw conclusions based on facts.
What is needed is for the the people of California to be enlightened on the subject of CAGW with the facts that the alarmists and activists cannot dispute. The state’s population needs to realize that they have been had on the issue of climate. If and when that happens, the behavior of state officials in Sacramento will hopefully reflect it.
CD in Wisconsin commented: “… because the majority put these irrepsonsible officials in office to begin with. …..”
Common misconception. Yes the majority of voters are responsible but only 40% of the people vote. Majority = 20%+. Americans are an easy target because of their apathy to politics and government. Face it, Capitalism has been good for the US and few can tell the difference anyway. Despite all the hype and bluster AGW caused problems for the citizens has been negligible to none so far. We fret over things like this because they are symptomatic of totalitarianism but the average Joe not so much. Example; Look at all the Federal land grabs to “protect wilderness and the environment” and “make parks (that no one can go to)” in the last 7 years…. the spin that’s believed is “it’s for the people”.
“Americans are an easy target because of their apathy to politics and government”
Maybe voters just don’t have any choice except between anti privacy right people (“pro life”) and anti privacy right and anti every other right (“pro choice”) people, with both groups supporting global surveillance and opposing the right to encrypt data and the 1st amendment right of Apple to not write program that destroy privacy?
simple-touriste commented: “…Maybe voters just don’t have any choice ….”
They do, they make the choices.
CD – I do not think there is any intelligent life left in California. Smart people left the state long ago. Of course, I have a similar problem living in the (un)free state of Maryland where we immediately adopt every ignorant idea coming out of California. The sacrifices we make to live close to family. Well, at my age, if I am lucky I have about ten more years; twenty, if I am unlucky.
markl, no. It is “for the children,” except for those sacrificed (aborted) on the altar of privacy.
Didn’t they defend slavery by claiming that it was a right to privacy?
if they tried, the California legislature could not produce a more unconstitutional bill. What next, establishing the Green Church and madate tithing? I agree with Logos_wrench that Hillary just might appoint someone to the court that would approve of this atrocity.
Seriously. I mean, there’s nothing else to say. This is an attempt to overthrow the constitution in the most blatant of ways.
One upside. Hopefully, it will finally cause people to wake up and say “enough is enough”.
Hillary should be asked where she stands on this. Hell, Trump should should make a statement and then challenge her on it. I want to hear Trump use ( learn?) some new adjectives. Odious, totalitarian come to mind. He can ad tremendous if he can’t help himself.
This article fails to name and shame the authors of the Bill.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,”
Let’s look at the bright side. It seems that anyone using models in lieu of physical evidence could be prosecuted under this law. Claiming a higher degree of feedback according to models would be unlawful. Bye Bye IPCC .
Absolutely! Is there any town or other jurisdiction in California with a skeptic bent? Even one would do.
If this law passes, it would be great if the first action taken would be against the alarmists, and it seems like there are many who are misleading the public on the dangers of CAGW. How about the model makers?
And just how in the Sam Hill does being skeptical of anything equate with Unfair Competition anyway.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical that Vaccinations do any good and are more harmful.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical that miniscule Cell Phone radiation poses no threat.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical of any number of things.
I guess skepticism of anything will become illegal in Crazyfornia.
Tom. every cloud has it’s silver lining, since all the models are different, having all those scientists duke it out in court to be declared the one true model builders, with the losers going to jail, What joy.
Bryan A — my thoughts exactly. Even assuming that AGW is going to do us all in, how do you further your commercial interests by denying it? Simply being called out for doing so will get people to boycott your business. This is surreal.
Anthony,
What will be the status of California meteorologists who publically express “doubts”
about anthropogenic-induced climate change… or even run a blog where such
doubts might be publicized ?
…there’s a chill in the air.
Our esteemed host might have to relocate to Free America, maybe Dallas or Bartlesville.
Not that PR sensitive Big Oil would welcome him with open arms.
I would speculate the “status” would rapidly become “mobile”…
FWIW, I have already established legal residence in Florida and I’m working on getting all my stuff relocated… 30 years accumulation is a lot of stuff to toss… and deferred maintenance to do…
California has become a good place to be from…
Welcome to Florida, the land of no state income tax, homestead exemptions and huge alligators.
+1
florida ain’t marin. land is cheap but there is a deep vein of appalling ignorance.
in marin, the fast checkout lanes say ’20 items or fewer’.
that kind of literacy, in florida, will never be.
where i’m living, it’s a rival for the fanatic control freakishness of texas.
and this is the state where goat raping is common in the news.
the activists are here in force, too.
Well I do not have ANY doubts that the climate results predicted to occur within the State of California by the present climate models, correctly predict what is known to have already occurred or not occurred.
That is they so far cannot predict what is known to have already come to pass. I make no assertion about their ability to predict anything that may happen in the future, only that which they have already predicted would occur.
G
How many scientists in the California Senate? I’m guessing none is the correct answer.
Nay Sir, this legislation sounds as if it were drafted by those who’ve called themselves “climate scientists” these past few years.
Almost unbelievable. What a sad day for the once great United States of America, the land of the free.
In a nation in which those convicted of “hate crimes” can be given additional, extra-special sentences and those who honestly debate scientific facts be condemned to prison (thank you, Bill, Nye, the Science Guy!), it seems that the United States Constitution has been well and truly trashed.
…Ah, good ole’ California…the land of fruits and nuts !
California is proof that the US is sloped to the west. All the fruits and nuts roll there.
Frank Lloyd Wright (The Architect) said that the people that inhabit California come from thus activity: Take a map of the USA, gradually tilt it close to upright, and all that fall/slide off, become Californians. I think the current SB 1161 embodies this brilliant observation.
The world is going mad.
Not going. Gone.
And Jefferson wept…
Strange that some Americans only now begin to realize that they live in the totalitarian state.
We’ll know in about nine months.
Think we’ll get to November, do ye?
please accept my general appreciation for your comments, alexander feht.
May we know the names of the nutcases who are backing this little piece of legislative art? Do we have no chance of sending someone home in November?
They will stop at nothing!
Not good.
So where is one to go? Skeptics might become the first climate change refugees, although political climate change asylum-seekers might be a better term.
Perhaps we can seek political asylum in Mexico…
Don’t go running scared. That’s what they want you to do.
This thing is just getting started. There will be a lot of pushback on this. Remember, the VI AG has already withdraw his prosecution, and he did so for the very same reason the others, including those in California, will do the same: They can’t prove that CAGW is real, and therefore they cannot prove anyone lied about it, which is the requirement for a charge of fraud.
The California legislature is proposing to violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens. Every state in the Union has a stake in this not happening.
This is the future if the Liberals get elected to the presidency: A walk into tyranny.
If Trump gets elected, then he will restored the U.S. Constitution and take on these Totalitarians.
At least we won’t be fighting alone on this. There is one group that believes in the first amendment more than anyone: the media. Attacking the first amendment even tangentially is the best way to get them on your bad side.
And please don’t call these people liberals.
The basis of liberalism is that they feel the government should help and care for people. While you can say their goals are naive or fundamentally flawed, you cannot say that this power grab banning opposing views is liberal. I cannot think of a more illiberal thing.
This is the difference between Sanders Socialism and Stalinist Communism. Force and the trampling of basic rights. One of these is a bad idea. The other is a living nightmare.
Don’t be fooled. Sanders’ Socialism is every bit as tyrannical as Stalin’s Communism. The difference is only semantic.
Again, why do you call totalitarians ‘liberal’, as in ‘liberty’?
They are radical, not liberal.
A communist is a socialist who’s in a hurry.
benofhouston
June 2, 2016 at 3:28 pm
As the Stein affair shows, not all the media are willing to overcome their political ideology to support the free speech rights of conservatives. But you’re right that even some Leftists will do so for their opponents, out of self-interest.
Ooo, I think you just figured out the REAL design of the bill: creating “climate change refugees”. If the environmental climate will not cooperate, the political climate will just have to suffice.
“The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change…”
If that is so, can anyone point me to the authoritative document that provides the exact causes, extent, and current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change? From what I’ve seen, those pronouncements are highly speculative and keep changing from year to year. Where is this authoritative list so I can be sure not to publicly disagree with anything on it whenever I happen to be in California? For example, is the prediction that children will not know what snow is on the list of future impacts that cannot be disagreed with?
We have reached the point where politicians are declaring scientific truths.
And to think, so many of our trolls constantly whine whenever we spend too much time talking about politics.
I wonder if any of them will have the courage to show up on this thread?
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest that just posting to a site like this, no matter where you may live will mean CA politicians will try to sue you.
I plead guilty to CAGW skepticism. I’ve seen no evidence of it. Perhaps the California politicians could show us some evidence proving it exists. It shouldn’t be that difficult, they can just use the same evidence they are using to write this new law.
Let them try! By the formerly sacred constitution if a state wishes to sue someone from another state, it must be done in Federal Court, under US rules and laws not those of the state. Now if I were to have business in California, I would forgo any ventures there and divest myself of any holdings possible.
The oil companies should suddenly get extremely safety conscious and find a need to do pipeline maintenance on EVERY pipeline leading into California for about a month when this is in final reading/vote form. Also all the refineries should suddenly get VERY safety conscious and shutdown for any niggling problem that has been around for 20 years, running California out of refined products. Maybe they should do a state safety recall on all petroleum products as it has been determined by the state of California to be calamity of first order to use the product as intended, followed by a complete withdrawal of the product from the market in California. This should be followed by withdrawal of natural gas and coal deliveries as well. California needs to lead the nation in “decarbonization”!
Of course it would be nice if the companies would let Arizona, Nevada and Oregon know ahead of time so they can mobilize the National Guard to the border to prevent refugees from escaping the mess they made.
(apologies to our host for locking him in with the crazies, but hopefully my California relatives (in the Sacramento and Chico areas) won’t cause him too many problems!)
There is legitimate disagreement on the cause and extent of GRAVITY! Name one topic in science that has no one investigating and questioning the predominant theory.
“The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change…”
Seems that this Bill would declare a scientific theory as having the status of truth, which offends the first part of the First Amendment forbidding the establishment of religion.
Litigation could take the Form of the Scopes Monkey Trial, not on the basis of which side of the debate is correct, but on the power of the State of California to declare that expression of “incorrect” scientific beliefs is unlawful.
Sounds more and more like the world in the work of fiction (now fast becoming a work of Faction) of Ayn Rand…”Atlas Shrugged”…
Though I do have to ask for a little clarification Anthony. In the third paragraph you wrote
==================================================================================
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
==================================================================================
How retroactive applies to a future date. Did you mean Jan 1 2012?
Thanks
No he means that actions that occurred prior to Jan 1, 2013 can be acted on, under this bill.
If I can answer as I see it : the 4-year limit can be ignored until Jan 1 2021. ie, an organisation can be prosecuted for any sceptical statement or sceptically-related action at any time in the past, provided charges are laid by Jan 1 2021. Nasty.
Nasty, and a violation of the U.S. Constitution against ex post facto laws. You can’t prosecute a crime that occurred before the law was passed. I’m sure they thought about that and have a rationale already thought out. They will probably claim that they’re only clarifying parts of the UCL (unfair competition law), which is a law that is already in effect. But they will need a sympathetic liberal court to bend the Constitution for them if this law is to remain on the books. That will take years, so the law will have its intended chilling effect on skeptics regardless.
I thought the constitution was the supreme law of the land.
This should be tied up in courts for a couple of days (Sorry Mark) You would think everyone would be up in arms just over the proposal clearing committee – I hope they video this when it hits the senate floor, this may be the bill to open the door for republicans
Somebody, please send the link to this to Donald Trump!!!
The U.S. Constitution *is* the law of the land, and this California law will not stand the test.
The fact that an elected official wrote it and had enough support to get it this far is chilling by itself.
The problem is the tens of thousands of lives ruined while the first test case works up to the supreme court over a decade…
‘The U.S. Constitution *is* the law of the land’
Explain the Volstead Act.
You’re right. The whole point of SLAPP suits is that being dragged into court is the punishment.
Even if you win, you lose.
benofhouston June 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Actually, it is no surprise that an elected official wrote it. One of the things that is frequently neglected in what passes for Civics classes these days is that the Bill of Rights is intended not to support democracy but to protect individuals from the potential excesses of democracy – the tyranny of the mob. We currently hear about “democracy” as if it were uniformly a good thing, rather than the best of a wide array of port choices. But democracy unfettered leads to situations as bad as any that can be found in history. Study the execution of Socrates and the subsequent decline of Athens, the death of Julius Caesar (who arguably needed it) at the hands of a “quorum” of the Roman senate (it has been argued that Caesar was legally executed rather than murdered since the action was taken by a senate quorum), ands consider the role democracy in Adolf Hitler’s rise power. He wasn’t elected, but the man who appointed him Chancellor was.
Elected officials enact laws that they believe will benefit their constituents, and if a minority of those are unhappy, the elected fellow simply shrugs. If they weight their “constituents” by their bank roll, then money talks – votes. What is disturbing is that the bill was framed at all, since it plainly suspends the First Amendment. But then you consider other limits of free speech – some apparently reasonable and others not so much, or at all. You literally cannot joke about hijacking or bombs in an airport without risking arrest. You can use the wrong literature in a college English class and be convicted of everything including sexual harassment of students by assigning say D. H. Lawrence to read.
Amen! When I was young we were told that our freedom was our greatest asset. It was what separated us from the evil Nazis and Soviets. Somehow, we’ve lost sight of that.
Socialists have long supported hate speech laws which clearly violate the 1st amendment.
So they have a long history of supporting the suppression of speech that they disagree with.
““deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.””
Yeah, except they really won’t go after those folks,
they’ll go after “climate skeptics” instead.
““deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.””
that sounds like a two-way street, bring Al in and ask why there is still ICE!
Good point. Can the bill be used to go after those who have made failed alarmist predictions?
Can the legislation be used to prosecute warmists for false claims?
Bills passed by leftists only apply to their enemies. Never themselves.
No, because in the text they declare the truth itself.
In theory, that should be possible. But when courts get politicized enough, it might be difficult to get a fair treatment. This is what happens all the time all over the world. People want to control their political opponents with legislation.
Why do you think campaign financing laws are so popular with politicians.
They always end up hindering the challenger making existing politicians even more secure.
I think it is time to free ourselves from the preconception that environmentalism is equivalent to humanism, the environmentalists seems to be a greater threat to humans and civilization than climate change can ever become.
respect to Sci or Fi. another commenter i appreciate.
I lived in the Bay Area for 22 years and it is hard for most normal people to appreciate how looney-tunes most people are in that State, especially in that part of it. And many of these are people with Masters and PhD degrees, so in theory not “stupid.”
I don’t think those of us who grew up in the 20th Century appreciate that belief systems can and still do overwhelm reasoned examination of facts. We like to think such broad-scale social behavior (belief systems with questionable factual basis) are something “of the past” when people were in the thrall of metaphysical/ religious belief systems.
Well, the reality about humanity is that we are just as susceptible to irrational belief systems now as we were then. Science is of no help. Lack of a belief in “God” is no help. We want to so desperately believe in something “bigger than ourselves” that vast numbers of us will not only believe in nonsense, but will want to forcibly prevent others from having different opinions.
The “death of God” is showing its ugly consequence.
…As an Agnostic person, I agree with you… 1,000%
I’m atheist, but still feel that metaphysical religion has its place, and since Christianity (at least, if not Islam or Judaism) has renounced a Church-State nexus, people in Christian countries are (mostly) free from the tyranny of God in their civil lives.
But, if environmentalism as a belief system replaces Christianity, as I believe it is doing, we are back to the 12th century in the relationship between belief systems and the State.
Are you sure JP?
For example, a ME PhD college professor has been advocating using propane as a working fluid power plants instead of water because it is more efficient. Incredibly stupid.
Advanced degrees indicate specialized knowledge not advanced intelligence. I had 5 PhD geologist tell me I could not comment on technical issue. My response was it was high school chemistry and nuclear physics. Both of which they got wrong.
Part of not being stupid, is being skeptical. For example, I new reactor engineer fresh out college was surprised that the old guy was skeptical of AGW. I promptly got links to USA Today stories on GW. I asked him how many times he cited USA Today in his thesis. A few years later he was skeptic.
r. kit p –
you don’t indulge the dummies a bit. you call em as you see em and don’t care if it triggers some wuss into his safe space.
i appreciate your comments .
JP Miller wrote: “Well, the reality about humanity is that we are just as susceptible to irrational belief systems now as we were then. Science is of no help. Lack of a belief in “God” is no help. We want to so desperately believe in something “bigger than ourselves” that vast numbers of us will not only believe in nonsense, but will want to forcibly prevent others from having different opinions.”
And all this is complicated by the Leftwing News Media spewing lies in all directions. The Leftwing News Media is probably the biggest threat to the freedoms of Americans that exist.
A self-governing country like the U.S. cannot govern itself properly without the people knowing the truth, and they are not getting the truth from the Leftwing News Media, they are getting Leftwing propaganda and lies that create false realities.
Nine months will tell the tale. Then we will see which direction the U.S. is going. Here’s hoping it is to the Right.
“The “death of God” is showing its ugly consequence.”
Yes! As an atheist, I have often thought the decline in religious participation has created a lack of an outlet for guilt. CAGW has filled the void of organized religion in creating an anodyne for personal guilt. Man is wicked but perform these ablutions and your sins will be forgiven. CAGW has the same function as the traditional religions and as always, the worst part are the proselytizers demanding we all convert to their particular religion.
Environmentalists: believe what you will but for the love of God, please leave me alone.
Assuming it doesn’t die in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional…
This could be a great way to turn the tables. Any trial would end up dragging in the actual scientific data not the modelled crap.
This could backfire in two ways. First by demonstrating that the scepticism is warranted. Second that the people that are lying about the science are the alarmists. The bill appears to not outlaw scepticism of climate change as mis-representing the science. And I suggest that a very good case can be made for that for alarmism.
I’m about to agree that the only way CAGW will be exposed as the fraud it is will be in a medium where rules of evidence apply. This could backfire on them if CAGW is fully vetted in the only process in existence known to man to have the most chance at fairness, a court of law with both sides fairly represented. Not tried in the press, not ‘peer review’ science.
“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.
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…
The oil companies should all stop selling gas and oil for a week to start with.
The states surrounding CA need to shut down all power lines into that state.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
– 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.
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.
Wind and Solar Farmers might claim Oil Co.s have an unfair advantage.
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.
The bill is proclaiming that climate science denial is de-facto unfair competition.
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!
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.
(10) not climate change –
http://www.investors.com/california-drought-caused-by-environmental-activists/#ixzz3fdquBgFi
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…
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.
Nick, did you miss this quote from the article:
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.
“It isn’t about the realm of speech and ideas”?
I gather you support this legislation, Nick?
Having read SB-1161 and the analysis on the California Legislative Information website, Nick Stokes’ characterization of the legislation is accurate and complete.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Nick_Stokes_Defense_scr.jpg
Unfortunately, the “Stokes Shift” already has an entry in wikipedia.
The “Hypocrit polka”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
“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
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.
@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.
” 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.
As opposed to the Salem witch trials.
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”
It sounds a bit like the Indiana Pi Bill of 1897.
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.
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.
This *is* an act of desperation on the part of the Alarmists. And the temperatures keep dropping.
I’d like to see an itemized list of the claims made by the consensus, particularly as it relates to the current impacts of anthropogenic climate change on the globe.
If they don’t have a list of claims, then how is anyone supposed to know if they are breaking the law by contradicting the consensus?
We played with mercury at our third grade desks. Dunked pigtails into the ink bottles. Got whacked by teachers before our parents whacked us. Learned respect for elders, and the value of saving. Fought 2 wars, and built the strongest economy the world has ever known. Scientists published, presented data, facts, at Electra Chem, IEEE and myriad other professional conferences, and thousands shared in their discoveries for all to digest and accelerating scientific discovery and innovation. In only 50+ years, it is now all upside down. “Scientists” now sue others to stymie innovation, and protect their “precious” data from discovery. What the hell happened?????
The Progressive movement returned and took over the UN with the socialists and communists.
Read the Communist Manifesto. We can now check off more than half in the USA. Not sure the exact number as I haven’t looked recently again… It starts with government control of schools. Now seasoned with “3rd Way” Socialism control of nominally private companies via massive regulation systems. (Pioneered by Mussolini who was a Progressive Socialist. Fascism is not “right wing”. He started his career translating Socialist documents working with his parents, and professed his Socialism at his final capture. Read your history… He coined the phrase “3rd way “.)
The Club Of Rome launched the movement to turn ecology into political control in the 70s via the book “The Limits To Growth” by Meadows et. al. that used computer models to predict, oh, pardon project doom in our time… starting the whole model of using only models… Later The Club hit on the idea of Global Warming and now pushes it in the same way.
You are up against a global Socialist movement that sees bringing down the west, and the USA in particular, as the only way to bring about “the worker’s revolution” and save the planet (for them).
There’s much more detail available, but that’s the short form. We thought we won W.W.II and went to sleep. They went underground and set to work…
+1
Communism is patient.
I disagree, however, that socialists “took over” the UN. No, they founded it.
Bill 1161 seems designed to go after the misinformation campaign run by the oil companies. My initial impression is the ordinary “Joe Blow” should not be too concerned as to any personal risk.
May be worth noting, that on the legal front, kids have won big victories recently in Washington State and Massachusetts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washingtonk-kids-climate-lawsuit_us_5723f60ae4b01a5ebde5be52?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/massachusetts-teens-climate-change_us_573f1bf5e4b045cc9a70b23c?
JohnMacdonell wrote: “Bill 1161 seems designed to go after the misinformation campaign run by the oil companies.”
Misinformation? What misinformation?
From the alarmists. They should have heeded the old saying “be careful of what you wish for”.
Look at Exxon, for a start:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/25/two-faced-exxon-the-misinformation-campaign-against-its-own-scientists
I am very glad to be a MacDougal and not a Macdonell if John is an exemplar of the clan. Using the Guardian as a source of scientific information is a fools errand. On par with using the Huffington Post. They are great sources of seeing what world wide communism sees as its next goal or great project, but cr@p for finding the truth.
The Exxon story is replete with innuendo. It is a typical hatchet job by an activist with an ax to grind. It is mostly based around one memo where a scientist noted a paper in a scientific journal that didn’t seem right to him. He quoted the salient points but thought the analysis was weak. Because he quoted the points of the paper, to the true believer that is “proof of a cover-up” and “just like the tobacco companies”. It is nothing of the sort.
So, what is the difference?
1. The tobacco companies created research where they were shown to have faked the data or cherry-picked the analysis to give a knowingly false impression in order to further a marketing scheme to hook more smokers.
The oil companies noted a paper that thought that burning carbon-based fuels would lead to temperature increases and didn’t think the analysis was up to par.
2. The tobacco companies started an explicit PR campaign to openly attack the work of the scientists linking smoking to disease. This included hiring men in white coats to present a false narrative concerning the product.
The oil companies overwhelmingly funded the research centers that were trying to prove global warming and gave large sums of money to their green critics. (They may have had the nefarious plan to put their coal competitors out of business, but that is another topic.)
That is enough of a difference for now, but the Attorneys General are going to have a steep hill to climb to try to extort moneys from the oil industry. For one the big oil concerns have more money at their disposal to litigate this than the 17 or 19 states and territories combined. This is not an easy lawfare case. For another, the oil industry has not engaged in the same level (or any) of knowing misrepresentation that the tobacco industry did. There simply is no smoke to indicate a fire like there was with tobacco.
Owen in GA:
Look at some of the denial groups Exxon supports(eg CFACT) Glad to see WUWT not apparently a recipient of Exxon grants:
http://www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon-did-cohen
CFACT is not a “denial group” it is a conservative group that happens to not believe the political science of CAGW. Now look VERY closely at the decimal place in the various grants. You will note that the number of places to the left of the decimal point is CONSIDERABLY larger to places like the University of East Anglia, Greenpeace, and the climate science departments of universities around the world then it is to conservative think tanks who happen to disagree with the political science of CAGW and whose grants had more to do with market and political analysis for the product they sell. One of the problems with grants to conservative and libertarian leaning think tanks is that the grant can be for any of the various lines of analysis that the think tank specializes in. So the grants may have nothing to do with CAGW and may instead be about the market environment and demand for various energy products in the future. They also get advice from such think tanks on what is the best political posture to take to maximize long-term return on their investors’ money.
This brings up another point. You seem to think it would be wrong for Exxon to defend themselves against what appears to be spurious attacks by the Green Gestapo. The BEST way to do so would be to fund people who are seen as honest outside brokers to get to the ground truth on the issues. Oil and gas companies (indeed all mining industry companies) are based on scientific evidence in all they do. Geologists do almost all of their real work for companies looking for natural resources. They gather more information about the Earth than the rest of the scientific world combined (maybe except biologists, but it would be close). The process starts with Geology, then proceeds through several engineering disciplines to get to the resource. Once the resource is acquired, the chemists/chemical engineers take over to make it into a consumer product. Up to this point EVERYTHING is about science and hard data (and a few educated guesses consistent with the data), but from there it is in the hands of the liberal arts and business guys – getting the product to the consumer and creating a demand. Most of the companies and their corporate cultures are based around the science part and they take data very seriously – the science data and its analysis and educated guesses are the difference between the company being fantastically successful and going bankrupt. Most of the folks in these companies can read scientific papers (maybe not the roughnecks that do the actual drilling/digging) and can look at data and smell a rat. Natural data has a feel to it that once you have looked at enough of it, outliers become obvious. Most published climate data in the last 25 years or so has lost that natural feel, this causes people to dig and check the adjustments and the errors in judgment (as we hope it is – no one hopes it is nefarious, but that is looking more likely by the minute) become obvious. I certainly would not trust a government-paid scientist to collect and analyze the data when the “solution” to the “problem” is ever greater GOVERNMENT CONTROL over all aspects of daily life. It seems to me there is a (glaringly huge) little conflict of interest problem there.
This has got to be the most naive comment yet, and you’re competing against Nick Stokes in that category.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
“Unfair competition” is a clear admission that climate alarmist scientists couldn’t contradict skeptics by using the Scientific Method. The claim that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming has been demolished by almost twenty years of no global warming — while CO2 has steadily increased.
And there’s no good long term correlation either, between rising CO2 and global warming. Despite the steady rise in CO2, close to half the decades of the preceding century have seen global cooling. So their conjecture that “carbon” is the primary cause of global warming was simply wrong. If CO2 has any effect, it’s been too small to measure.
Since they’ve lost the scientific argument, now they’re trying to legislate science:
(1) There is broad scientific consensus that…
…the Earth is flat, and witches cause disease, and heavier than air flight is impossible, and the Sun revolves around the earth, and epicycles explain planetary motion… &etc.
This is also a direct legal threat against science sites like WUWT. All that most of us are doing is challenging them to prove their conjecture. Or at least, produce credible evidence to support their belief that a rise in CO2 and other GHGs will cause harmful global warming.
But there is no empirical evidence or observations to support their claims, while all real world observations contradict their “dangerous AGW” climate alarmism. Failing to make a convincing scientific case, they’re now passing a law intended to prosecute anyone publicly skeptical of their ideology. Lysenko, anyone?
Finally, where is the usual handful of alarmist commenters? Do they agree with this legal end run? Because this law certainly wouldn’t be necessary if they had any good arguments or supporting evidence.
Be Advised the court does not examine the evidence. It examines the “expert witnesses”… who will only be chosen from the approved list, not the unwashed…
California’s 4th Reich Bill starts off with two utter Lies:
“There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns”
0.3 percent of scientists is not broad scientific consensus.
There is no evidence that AGW is “the” cause of world’s climate patterns.
Further, there is no evidence that world’s climate patterns are changing any differently than in the distant past.
I am just a Simple Red Neck, so I need a little help here. Why shouldn’t we call these people NAZIs??
Because leftists hate it when you tell the truth about them.
Good question. The difference is in the name.
National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
That first word, National. Communism believes in INTERnational Socialism (thus the USSR anthem The Internationale ) Since National Socialism was slightly less severe than Stalinist Communism, Stalin labled it Right Wing. In reality, from any POV outside Salinist Russia, it was rabidly Socialist. Don’t let revisionists of history fool you.
Since the Facists and NATIONAL Socialists gave Socialism such a bad name in W.W.II, the Socialist movement decided it must have been nationalism whot dun it (since they could not accept that it was a failure of Socialism). This has led to the global effort to redefine National Pride or any Nationalism as “right wing” and therefore evil. Yes, we are back to being pushed, one “union of countries” and one “trade treaty” at a time slow walking to International Socialism.
Since it avoids rabidly any Nationalism, you must use a differnt term. Properly, it would be Stalinist or, if folks actually understood economic history, Fascist (though they, too, had a nationalist urge, so maybe Stalinist is more accurate. ..)
With that bit of pedantic economic history out of the way, we can return to discussing The People’s Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Well…It seems to me that their economic plan is in keeping with National Socialists: The Dear Leader and his friends own everything and the government controls everything. As for being strictly national for the German NAZIs, that included all of Europe and the Soviet Union. Still, I only quibble. You are right.
today is gonna be ‘pay respects to my favorite commenters day’
Respect, EM
“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”
Would California’s Ministry of Propaganda care to back that up with solid evidence, not just some hearsay, or political accusations?
No.
It is based on a leaked internal memo (which the press always redacts to a single paragraph) where the scientist was noting the existence of a paper whose analysis he considered extremely weak. They always quote the part where he is quoting the paper and leave out the point by point take down of the analysis. As with all things of the left, it is what they won’t talk about that is the problem.
Owen, a “Thumbs Up” for explaining that to those who were likely misled by press’s overt pro-AGW editing of what really went down.
Breathtaking. And terrifying.
Hi from Oz. I’m re-reading ‘Atlas Shrugged’ at the moment and this nonsense looks eerily like the scenarios portrayed in the book, written in the 1950s. Ayn Rand surely was prescient! I can’t wait to see how this turns out vs the book. Where is ‘Hank Reardon’ when you need him?
Yep. The book was published in 1955. I bought a 50th Anniversary edition. I heard that the movie wasn’t all bad.
Let us remember that she fled Russia. I forget whether that was before or after the Russian revolutions. Yes, there were two that I am aware of.
her birth name was alyssa rosenbaum. she unilaterally emigrated (escaped) from st. petersburg.
her most brilliant effort was the definition of an objective morality (see Galt’s speech, @ p 960).
for this achievement i put her in my pantheon along with darwin and shannon.
she then proceeded to surround herself with people who would not contradict her and went crazy cuz there was nobody to keep her honest. i call this ‘guru syndrome’. lesson: if everybody agrees with you, you need to find somebody smarter than you to hang out with.
more trivia? alan greenspan was a ‘disciple’ who was excommunicated for some heresy i have not discovered.
barbara branden was obliged to share her husband with ayn but was able to capitalize on it. it became her claim to fame and fortune.
Left is using “Atlas Shrugged” as their Playbook.
Sorry, Boyfrom Tottenham, but you lost your chance a long time ago, when your gummit took away your rights. Keep in mind the great philosophers who wrote the song, “Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money”
They have found the ultimative hole in the constitution. The constitution grants the rights of free speech to the people. Corporations are not people so there is nothing to stop them to apply legislation to force corporations to do what they want! Just like the current rant on e-cigarettes in the EU, they don’t ban it, they just restrict the companies by requiring them to certify or restrict the products.
“Corporations are not people so”
Some Legal experts have chimed in (see Exxon vs. AGW – AGs) and said that Constitution protects Corporations, Businesses, and Organizations the same as people. At least outside of California…
May be, but why is it that certain companies (in the EU) are not allowed to advertise their products not even at the windows of their shops?
EU != US
Corporations are people, too. Think of the sole proprietor subchapter S professional corporations that many professions used to practice in business. Beyond that, all a corporation is happens to be an organization comprised of people, from a set size of 1 to millions. Where I live, towns and cities are corporations, organized for municipal government functions.
Yes, that’s right not all corporations are organized for commercial reasons.
The word means “embodiment”!
Indeed, that would be the literal translation from Lain. A thing that has a body/corpus.
Corporations are indeed “people,” but not so they can be afforded Constitutional protections. No, the reverse is true: it was so they could be charged with crimes as people.
I’d also say to limit the personal liability of the persons so organized for acts done by persons in the corporate (an organization given a body for legal personhood) form.
forgive my quibble, but if you think rights are received by grant- you may not be clear on the concept of rights.
One small correction: the constitution does not ‘grant’ the right of free speech, it affirms and protects the pre-existing right from the actions of the government. It is a constraint on government.
And the climate inquisition begins.
It is astonishing that this was even proposed in committee let alone got out of committee. I’d love to see some in depth legal analysis of this by a competent attorney but I am not sure you can find one any more.
Last rational person in California, please turn out the lights.
The bill is very likely Un-constitutional as written and, even if signed into law, subject to challenge on various Constitutional grounds.
+1
What a dumb Idea, I guess they will have to also prosecute any climate scientist who dares to publish any data that disagrees with the climate models,…. and also the creators of the climate models that disagree with any of the other climate models……….
This is the sort of thing which causes men to stand up
and throw down.
Just a quick observation here.
We often buy products which, on the back, in fine print, state:
“Known to the state of California to cause cancer”
Mandated by California law, no doubt.
It seems California has long established the legal precedent that the CA legislature can dictate scientific fact, and possibly truth as well.
This CAGW legislation seems to be a continuation of what has gone before.
And yet profit from these sales!
yeah- i had a box of 7d nails with that warning on them
when i used them i immediately grew a tumor on my head the size of a grapefruit which stole my identity and started posting on blogs.
Well you now have the embodiment of the true meaning of the phrase: “If you underline everything, you underline nothing”. No one today pays a bit of attention to these “mandated” California proclamations because we know through this warning flag today that “everything” causes cancer, similar to “documented” Global Warming.
“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”
When 99.7% of Scientists have doubt about AGW…
When AGWers models are wrong
When GW Climatologists have to Trash Satellite temperature data to keep their GW golden fleece going
When primary GHGs (at 99.72%) are Mother Nature’s – not human’s
When GW Climatologists can’t come up with explanation for 18-year Pause
When AGWers don’t know CO2’s effects are Logarithmic
When Mann’s own disagree with him, dismiss him, and fail to back him in his bogus lawsuit
There is obviously a lack of scientific understanding and there is scientific disagreement!
The unnecessary controversy has been foisted on World by those who claim AGW.
The enemy is truly within. No external enemy has come as close to taking away my basic rights as California Democrats are today.
Section 2. states
a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: 1. There is broad scientific consensus that AGW is occurring and that the primary cause is the production and combustion of fossil fuels ……followed by a long list of catastrophic effects
AND
b) It is the intent of the Legislature to …seek redress for unfair.. practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities….
As they have defined the AGW in this law any entity who misleads, confuses etc the public is liable for prosecution.
will they sing the same song when it becomes obvious to all that they are the deceivers and this law is fraud perpetrated on the public for their financial gain?
California must be taking a lead from North Korea.
North Korea has a 100% consensus on all topics.
That is, if you exclude the views of “criminals”.
Of course, there never was a consensus regarding the response of the climate to CO2 emissions or how to best respond to what may or may not be occurring.
But, the belief that there IS a consensus among scientists, may in fact be significantly aiding the mission to construct one.
For anyone who didn’t join with the mass deception this is possible going to be facepalms all the way down.
I went to a museum today, here in Somerset, UK.
One exhibit was marked “Until 9000 years ago, Somerset was a land of snow and ice”.
Yep – and then we all bought 4 wheel drives and installed gas central heating!!!
And look where we are now.
What a shame that neolithic man had so long to wait before electric cars and wind turbines.
All of this awful warming and glacial retreat could have so easily been prevented.
I guess that that exhibit should really be removed for throwing doubt on the consensus view that any current change in the climate is all down to us.
1984
This 1984 began in 1988!!
“Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all
It is always tyranny when the truth is no defense.
Vote Progressive for a Utopian Future
This is the acme of “political correctness”. It is “truth” by the coercion of the State.
“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.”
Notice that even if one admits that this statement is true, it still cannot be used to prosecute
any of those dissenters who claim the climate changes are not significantly large nor likely to continue
as the planet decarbonizes, which is clearly happening. Note also that a California law only can be enforced in California. And what’s to stop a journalist in California from publishing what someone in Indiana said about climate change? Let’s try to convince California to secede from the union. That would solve a lot of problems,especially if we built a fence around California.
One can only hope that Mama (nature) will soon tire of the left coast BS and trip the “big one” –that would solve a lot of problems also.
The third reading of the bill was scheduled for reading in the California Senate today. No sure what this means. Do they vote after the third reading? if so, it’s about 3 p.m. in California. Does anyone know what the vote was?
In parliamentary procedure, a ‘reading’ is just that, a review,of the text of a bill or motion. Most ordered bodies (legislatures, boards of directors, courts, etc.,) have bylaws which govern how a ‘motion’ is to be handled. In the case of something complex, like legislation, this allows persons not present at 100% of meetings to understand the motion, in preparation for debate. Bylaws also provide for how debate will proceed.
Too much political correctness! Orwell and 1984 here we come.
But, mind the “trigger warnings”!
Gillard passed a similar bill in Australia. $1,100,000 fine if you speak out against the scam.
If convicted, the punishment will be burning at the stake.
AND – speaking out on behalf of the accused will lead a person to be suspected of the same crime.
Even if they use solar to incinerate you, that would be a crime because it contributes to anthropogenic global warming… Come to think of it, they’ll probably make you pay a carbon tax before they light your burn pile. 🙂
Nope. Carbon sequestration for you… 6 feet under in sealed airtight container…
This bill will generate a huge amount of business for lawyers
What’s next? State takeover (nationalization on a statewide scale) of power assets so they can be “managed” in the most politically correct manner?
California already tried this in a “3rd Way” Socialism way via disastrous regulation in every detail under Democrat Gov. Gray “out” Davis. What followed was several years of rolling blackouts and brownouts until we had our ONLY Gov. recall and swapped in a Republican RINO… Aaaahnold. Power has been stable since.
When the white wine can’t be chilled, the TV doesn’t work, and your cell phone can’t be charged, even Californians will take (tepid) action…
For those interested, here is a link to the ‘Unfair Competition’ code of California…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210
Sparky,
The scientists who dare produce a study/data/conclusion that runs counter to the
mainstream climate change chants may NOT be covered by the new California law,
but the publishers (be they corporate or academic) MIGHT be subject to some of the
“unfair practices” provisions.
The “peer reviewers” of such studies might feel a sudden chill coming from over
their shoulders for facilitating the publishing such scientific dissonance/”disinformation”.
Just think of the most liberal (meaning far-reaching) interpretations and applications of
the law that might pop up in a California court, brought by either an AG or some NGO
that feels that it’s nose has been tweaked by a “denial” supporting study.
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200-17210
17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue
or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
17201. As used in this chapter, the term person shall mean and include natural
persons, corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, associations and
other organizations of persons.
17201.5. As used in this chapter:
(a) “Board within the Department of Consumer Affairs” includes any commission,
bureau, division, or other similarly constituted agency within the Department of
Consumer Affairs.
(b) “Local consumer affairs agency” means and includes any city or county body
which primarily provides consumer protection services.
17202. Notwithstanding Section 3369 of the Civil Code, specific or preventive relief
may be granted to enforce a penalty, forfeiture, or penal law in a case of unfair competition.
17203. Injunctive Relief–Court Orders
Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition
may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders
or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent
the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair
competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any
person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been
acquired by means of such unfair competition. Any person may pursue representative
claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements
of Section 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but
these limitations do not apply to claims brought under this chapter by the Attorney
General, or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this
state.
17204. Actions for Injunctions by Attorney General, District Attorney, County Counsel,
and City Attorneys
Actions for relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court
of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or a district attorney or by a county
counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation
of a county ordinance, or by a city attorney of a city having a population in excess of
750,000, or by a city attorney in a city and county or, with the consent of the district
attorney, by a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name
of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint
of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association, or by a person who has
suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.
Many thanks for Steve Fraser’s link:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210
It’s very easy to sort this out, the petro companies need to get together and act accordingly
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgq4w4dqKsU
It would be amusing to see the oil companies simply withdraw from doing business in California… Move the refinery ops to China and Texas and sell the stations to independents. .. then only sell to independent shippers if the load is headed to California. Gas would hit $8 a gallon quick… Ought not be all that hard to do either. The refineries here are fairly old and often sit on land that would sell for a bundle (near ports and with water views).
They likely would make more money, with a lower cost basis and shipping costs someone else’s problem…
That is excellent plan.
Side benefit is the California peasants are likely to be very upset with Overlords who proposed the Bill.
Time to buy stock in Pitch Fork and Torch companies…
A couple of years ago, Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY), then the largest producer of natural gas, and second largest producer of oil in The People’s Democratic Republic of California, spun off it’s California businesses, and moved the corporate headquarters to Texas. The spin-off company promptly lost around 97% of it’s value, but is still struggling along. The spin-off just announced a 1 for 10 reverse stock split. The PDR is not a good place to do business.
Your only hope is a man called Donald Trump.
Me-thinks this could backfire badly.
The Cal. Unfair competition code identifies corporations under the ‘persons’ category.
Corporations are “legal persons” under law just about everywhere… That is what the term means.. to in-corpor-ate is to make the body “corpor” of the new legal person…
The law literally makes it illegal to disagree with ANYTHING “scientific”
Which makes it all funny because 100% of the garbage pushed as “science” by the IPCC and warmists is casual correlation at best.
Just think… anything that has come to their perceived “con$ensus” will result in you being thrown in jail and your personal property seized.. They get consensus on believing in god is unscientific or they don’t like the food you eat, or the car you drive, and you just happen to disagree with them…… BOOM… Off to the Gulag you go..
They are not hiding their fascism any more or their desire to total dictatorial control.. America is in serious trouble… and its coming from within…
“and its coming from within…”
At least from West and East coasts. Those in middle, (aka Fly Over Country) are fighting against the Dictatorial Control. 😉
The saving grace is that research regularly finds that 50% of research is wrong.
OK but who are the rats in CA Congress supporting this???
The process is the punishment. But they are playing with fire. This can be turned against the AGW advocates easily, a few competent lawyers and a budget is all it takes. Even, or especially, if the California courts are biased, the case would get to the SCOTUS eventually. And the discovery is something the AGW groups should fear greatly. Drag all the internal document and communications out into the light, it could kill the climate hoax and put all the hoaxers into the cross-hairs of public wrath for a generation.
Remember, California also KNOWS what chemicals cause cancer.
They declare so on almost every door of every business in CA.
Casual causal correlation, at best…
Whatever happened to elected officials swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? Is that oath so easily forgotten by those who brought this legislation?
My heart bleeds for what this country is becoming.
I”m afraid of what is coming. In pre-WWII Japan the thought police were called the Kempeitai. In East Germany, they were called the Stasi. In National Socialist Germany they were called the Gestapo. In Communist China they were the Sīxiǎng Gǎizào. In Stalin’s Soviet Union they were called the Komitet Gosudastvennoy Besopanosti. In our nation they are called democratic socialists or Obamanistas. It doesn’t matter. I’m old and sick and not longer for this world. I do despair for my loved ones. But, I have some hope, if you folks can keep up the fight.
Only in the People’s Republic of California!
And the AG, Kamala Harris, is running for the US Senate …
Kamala Harris is mentioned in this thread.
It’s worth mentioning that she is favored to take Barbara Boxer’s seat in the Senate. There is a Kamala Harris election ad running where Jerry Brown states how great she is in prosecuting environmental cases, so now this aggressive, prejudiced lawyer is going to be voting on our federal legislation.
She will pose another real danger if she gets elected to the U.S. Senate!
I generally disapprove of referring to people as trash, but…
Garbage in, garbage out?
You mean this climate change?
https://tothepoles.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/ice-core-review/
Then by all means prosecute those who say we should ignore the coming ice age and be worried about warmer temperatures.
Or do you mean this forever warm scenario?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
I am still trying to figure out the reasons for warning us of a warmer moister climate.
Speaking for all leprechauns, warmer is better. Our standard outfits don’t shield us against cold. Besides, a leprechaun in a fur coat looks like a:
http://www.therobotspajamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/hostessSnoBall2.jpg
What are they ?? (I admit I am culturally impaired – no TV for 25 years)
Well, here’s hoping for big salmon fly hatches in the waters of the Wallowas …
They look like a frosted baked puffy pastry that I think we called “snoballs”… Mostly sugar and air…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sno_Balls
Pamela,
Looks like a Tribble? If my Star Trek memory is correct, they looked like this except were yellow or maybe pink – multiplied like bunnies, too as I remember…
Heh…the wording on that proposed legislation actually exposes a defense counsel to the same penalties for merely defending a client who wishes to challenge the inquisition. Arguing on their behalf is a form of skepticism.
After I read that the Portland Public Schools decided to ban books which raise any doubt about catastrophic climate change, I thought I couldn’t be more shocked. I was wrong. I don’t care whether the SCOTUS finds this unconstitutional or not, because this represents illegitimate government. If California passes this law, I will not accept it as legitimate. I urge anyone else who values the Constitution to do the same.
This law is blatantly unconstitutional per Article 1 Section 9, ” No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” This law meets both the definition for a Bill of Attainder and ex post facto Law.
It is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If anybody, or any organization goes to trial because of this law, it will be declared unconstitutional. If for some reason, somehow, this law is upheld, it will be time for rebellion.
If it really does criminalize “deceiving or misleading the public on the risks of climate change” then it’s a double edged sword because there’s a lot of folks doing just that. Can’t wait for the headline “California Grand Jury Indicts Al Gore.”
According to the Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/, the bill is dead.
The bill will be back. That is one thing you can count on about Left. They never ever give up grabbing more control, more power, more authority, or more money.
This is a lesson the NRA learned the hard way decades ago. If you give the Left an inch, they come back demanding a foot. Give them a foot, they come back demanding a yard.
Similarly, with Left it is all Take and no give. The Left may dangle something in exchange, but they will jerk it away at last moment, (or have a plan take it away through another demand).
If you have ever wonder why NRA is so steadfast against what seems like an innocuous gun provision, you now know it is because that innocuous gun provision is first slice of, a death by thousand paper cuts.
Absolutely, Dems B. Dcvrs! That is why I’m a Life Member!
From page 2 of the Washington Times article:
“The bill is considered dead because the house-of-origin deadline is midnight Friday and the state Senate is not scheduled to meet again before that. Later this year, however, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process.”
And from the California Legislature web site (quoted in the original post starting this thred, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1161
see the tab on the table “History” which reports:
06/02/16 Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Monning.
05/10/16 Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
05/09/16 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 3766.) (May 3).
04/22/16 Set for hearing May 3.
04/21/16 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3643.) (April 20). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
04/08/16 Set for hearing April 20.
04/04/16 Re-referred to Coms. on E.Q. and JUD.
03/29/16 From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
03/03/16 Referred to Com. on RLS.
02/19/16 From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 20.
02/18/16 Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
If I were running for political office against an incumbent who was an advocate of this bill, I would use that in my campaign material.
Wouldn’t it be rich if there was also a law that outlawed opposition to GMOs? Prosecute all those lefties who go against the overwhelming scientific evidence that says that GMOs are safe. That’ll learn ’em.
Not only does this violate freedom of speech but because AGW has become a religion it also violates freedom of religion. So apparently the following discussion of “science” may become illegal in my home state of California. The Ptolemaic system was at one time the “scientific consensus” so should claiming that the entire universe does not revolve around the Earth become illegal.
But the reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it . Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
Aside for the obvious assault on our 1st amendment right to free speech, I’d say the proposed state law also: 1) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 10 prohibition against passing ex-post-facto laws; and 2) violates the “dormant” Commerce clause under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states.
In any event the proposed law is a damming insult to the Constitution and disgusting to honest men.
Regarding: Goldrider June 2, 2016 at 5:10 pm
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.
————–
While I would agree 100% with your sentiment, it would stand if Hillary Clinton fills the bench as she would. Constitution be be damned. We are so dreadfully close to a permanent and tyrannical government.
I agree with your points. However, their plan is to use your money to go after you, businesses, and organizations. They will use Tax dollars (corporate and personal) to fund their Government Lawyer assault on those who dare speak against their claimed AGW. Their plan is to financially destroy any AGW naysayers who dare to speak up, and to intimidate anyone who might even think about it.
Take a look at what Obama’s EPA and BLM have done to ranchers, property owners, and even attempted to do with a home owner in Tahoe. The Feds hit them with outrageous fines, then order their assets seized. Trying hiring a Lawyer with Zero dollars, especially when there is no Pot of Gold should you win.
What would Stalin have done? Same modus operandi.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This can work both ways. If you are a CA based anthroglowarmie organization or government agency, you could be sued under this act, up to 2021, requiring you to defend against such proper scientific methods such as sign-to-noise ratio, background climate at an end interglacial, and you might even be faced with defending the seriously tortured surface datasets.
All you legal eagles out there, take note!
In fact, as I see it, this would be easy to defend against with the same tacks I just mentioned. Expensive? Probably. But definitely technically doable. I know, I’ve been doing it for a while now….
This completely unconstitutional law is extremely chilling and shows how close Americans are to completely losing their inalienable rights.
This law would ultimately jeopardize all freedoms of: thought, ideas, expression, assembly, petition, press, religion, debate and skepticism as deemed “counter” to arbitrary Statist approved dogma….
Many tyrannical governments throughout history have tried desperately to suppress freedom of speech to prevent any opposition to their tyrannical agendas… These tyrannical governments didn’t end well..
The essence of science and an individual’s inalienable rights to: life (including an individuals’ thoughts, ideas and beliefs that define their lives), liberty (freedom from government oppression), and property (which included intellectual property) is the ability to freely and openly debate one’s ideas. Once governments fail to protect and defend these rights and actively seek to destroy them, citizens become slaves to the state.
The Constitution was written to prevent the government from ever passing laws like this anti-freedom of speech California law, but, alas…
Leftists have this crazy notion that the government has the power and obligation to prevent people from being offended… It doesn’t. To the contrary, the US is one of the few countries in the world that still protects and defends “hate” speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
This insane “Social Justice Warrior” movement is essentially a means to remove the right of freedom of speech and to empower the government to decide what thoughts and ideas are protected and which are criminally actionable…
If Hillary is elected, she’ll have at least 3 SCOTUS appointments that will actively defend laws like this anti-free-speech California law, under the false pretense of “saving the world”– hey, who can be against “saving the world”???
That alone should give anyone pause prior to November..
Once this is passed, the State of California should instruct all internet service providers that they must block website domains that allow dissenting views on climate.
This is certainly unconstitutional, in the sense that is inconstant with the actual wording of the first amendment. We must remember however that we are two justices away from a SCOTUS that believes that the court is free to effectively re-write the Constitution with a 5-4 majority.
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.
D’ye know, interpreted correctly, that means that just about every renewable energy in California could find itself in the dock?
Since there is no scientific evidence for AGW that stacks up,any company that uses AGW as an excuse to make profits it would not have otherwise done, seems to me to be liable for prosecution.
The “gut and amend” process mentioned by the Washington Times article in Mr. Wickersham’s post above is an amazing theory of science, political science, that is. It is where proposed legislation that has met all of the mandated deadlines of the legislative process is amended to remove all of the original language and replace it with language from another bill that has not met the mandated deadlines. Then the amended bill is passed with great fanfare. (And now you know the relationship between making sausage and making laws.)
Mr. Riley is correct that the Constitution means whatever a majority of the Justices say it means. As I mentioned in a post in another thread, the Legislature could fix this, but they are cowards and will not do it. As a result, we are no longer a Republic ruled by laws, but a Democracy ruled by the tyranny of the majority.
I think they’re just sticking to the script. The scrpt needed the Energy Policy 1988 Bill to be passed – it wasn’t.
They don’t seem very adaptible – just trying to steam-roll ahead.
The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change fraud, prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech. A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. Four prosecutors have begun investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change fraud.
Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The measure provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until January 1 on charges of climate change fraud extending back indefinitely.
‘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,’ said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.
The bill died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change fr aud, prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech. A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. Four prosecutors have begun investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change fr aud.
Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The measure provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until January 1 on charges of climate change fr aud extending back indefinitely.
‘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,’ said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.
The bill died on Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
[Dupe. .mod]
More info on the authors:
Introduced by Senator Allen
(Coauthors: Senators Jackson and Leno)
Allen http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/
Jackson http://sd19.senate.ca.gov/
Leno http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/
Welcome to politics in the Republic of California
Post was duplicated because it disappeared for a while after submission.
With all your troubles with WordPress, I sometimes have to guess what is happening.
I am “confused.” Does the bill outlaw me from (1) publicly stating that there is no climate change – Speech Police or (2) stating and thinking that there is no climate change – Thought Police?
Does the bill apply only when I am physically present within the state of California? Or, does the bill make me subject to arrest for communicating my denial of man made climate change into the state of California while I am in, say, Kansas?
In other words, LIBERALS ARE NUTS!
So, we just forget the “Land of the free” bit? Have rewrite, think of something else?
Panic over?
http://www.thegwpf.com/california-senate-sidelines-bill-to-prosecute-climate-sceptics/
I notice from the Terms of Service for WordPress the following:
“Except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise, this Agreement, any access to or use of our Services will be governed by the laws of the state of California, U.S.A., excluding its conflict of law provisions, and the proper venue for any disputes arising out of or relating to any of the same will be the state and federal courts located in San Francisco County, California. ”
Does this apparent incorporation in the State of California mean that if WordPress or its parent company were to continue to do business with sites of a sceptic nature , such as WUWT, they would be subject to prosecution , and that they would be advised by their lawyers to restrict business solely to warmist sites ?
They of course know that they were trying to infringe 1st amendment. And they didn’t care the least : this is the most disturbing thing in this mess
On the other hand, it seems that even in California this piece of **** could not get enough traction to turn into effective law. That’s a good point
I’m surprised this article wasn’t a “sticky” on this site.
I understand that it would be hazardous to sell oil-based products in California and so I recommend that “big oil” grows a pair and stop selling in California.
When California complains, they might say that this step is costing lie. But under that law, should would clearly not allowed as anyone knows that it is the use of fossil fuels is costing live so not selling fossil fuel products would be completely legal. Complaining about it would not.
Remember years and years ago when they told us that “the big one” could hit at any moment, and California could break-off and slide into the Pacific Ocean? Well… I’m still waiting.
Aside from the obvious Constitutional issues, another major issue is that it sets up politicians and political appointees as “peer reviewers” of the science used in a very politically charged debate.
Ah, The Thought Police. We’ve been expecting you…. ; (
This law is ridiculous, Crime of lèse-majesté against the state HERE WE COME.
California Constitution 1849..
Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Challenge this Statute in the courts…
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION – CONS
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 – SEC. 31] ( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
SEC. 2.
(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
Well, being facetious and taking the proverbial mickey out of you Americans from afar, I would simply say this: your founding fathers designed the First Amendment to ensure that you didn’t have good reason to take advantage of the Right to Bear Arms and shoot each other, except under the circumstances which that Amendment within the Constitution was suitably designed for.
Now, your green zealots are giving all you gun-toting conservatives a perfect excuse to get your guns out and, instead of dissenting verbally about climate change, simply killing the loud mouthed eco-fascists who are preventing you from so doing.
‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’.
‘Never pass legislation without considering carefully the unintended consequences of your actions’.
1161 dead for now. I think there are 2 things we can all count on now, whatever our beliefs:
1. Another bill like it will arise – from somewhere in the US. Perhaps even a re-iteration of 1161 in CA.
2. If the new bill is passed – in whatever state – it will be challenged – all the way to SCOTUS.
When those 2 things happen, it will be very interesting to all of us to watch how it plays out.
On the legal front, it may be worth noting 2 big wins(by teens, surprisingly) recently, in Washington State and Massachusetts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washingtonk-kids-climate-lawsuit_us_5723f60ae4b01a5ebde5be52?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/massachusetts-teens-climate-change_us_573f1bf5e4b045cc9a70b23c?
Quit shipping gas and oil to California for one week. This will go away quickly.
“… scientific evidence regarding the existence, … of anthropogenic induced climate change …”
I wonder what that “evidence” is supposed to be?
I asked Dr Trenberth and he didn’t have anything.
I would make a joke about Chicken Little if it weren’t for the fact that this is a serious situation…we have allowd psycho maniacs take over our government. This is very dangerous territory and it must be stopped. All the more reason we must elect Trump for president and start cleaning out these people who are destroying our country.
New law, you all have to believe in my God only. Those who don’t are subject to prosecutions from my book of law which i will write as i see fit. The End
In 1897 they were about to pass a bill in Indiana fixing the value of pi at some rational number (3.2, perhaps).
Luckily a German professor just happened to be passing through town at the time, and talked them out of it – otherwise the idea might have taken the country by storm.