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

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

first-amendment

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.

The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.

“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.

While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.

Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a

“totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”

“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” asked Mr. Frank in a May 31 post.

“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161,” Mr. Frank said.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris belongs to a coalition of 17 state attorneys general that joined forces in March to pursue climate-change skeptics, starting with ExxonMobil.

The floor analysis cites as a rationale for the bill articles published last year by InsideClimate News and the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project accusing ExxonMobil of hiding its research on climate change, which the company has denied.

“By extending the statute of limitations, California has the opportunity to hold these companies fully accountable for their actions,” said the analysis.

The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change, stating that, “There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.”

Walter Olson of the website Overlawyered called the bill “extraordinary,” adding that “the target is clearly public-issue advocacy.”

“Combined with the plans laid by California Attorney General Kamala Harris — part of the alliance of AGs that has sought to investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as ‘climate denial’— the bill would begin laying the legal groundwork for an astonishingly broad campaign of inquisition and, potentially, expropriation,” Mr. Olson said in a May 31 post.

====================================

This is mind blowing, they are suspending the statute of limitations with this language:

342.5.

(a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
358 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 2, 2016 1:56 pm

would not proof be needed to verify an untruth?

skorrent1
Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 2, 2016 2:11 pm

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

Gunga Din
Reply to  skorrent1
June 2, 2016 2:57 pm

Mann’s MO. His expenses don’t come out of his pocket.
Now the want the accuser’s expenses to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  skorrent1
June 2, 2016 3:43 pm

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

Redneck
Reply to  skorrent1
June 2, 2016 10:19 pm

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

…. or science.

Redneck
Reply to  skorrent1
June 2, 2016 10:28 pm

This unconstitutional law is being proposed by those who call themselves “Democrats”. This is overt fascism .
If the science was so certain it would not be necessary to make laws declaring it be the TRUTH.
Any law which has the word “truth” in it’s name is based on a lie.

MarkW
Reply to  skorrent1
June 3, 2016 9:13 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 2, 2016 2:37 pm

From my early reading, it looks like merely disagreeing with the pronouncements of the state vis-à-vis climate change is sufficient proof of guilt.

Redneck
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 2:52 pm

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

benofhouston
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 3:24 pm

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.

Ted Seay
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 3:52 pm

You read good, Kemosabe.

Doug in Calgary
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 4:38 pm

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

JohnKnight
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 5:06 pm

“Sheesh. You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines.”
Many fake scientific thinkers around here don’t apply skepticism to anything with the label ‘vaccine’ on it, as far as I can tell. Disgusting blind faith in a word . .

simple-touriste
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 6:44 pm

“There’s an order of magnitude more certainty (with vaccines).”
And yet:
– vaccines aren’t tested like normal drugs
– there is no evidence that the flu vaccine is even useful at all
– there is overwelming proof that the Hep B vaccines cause MS
– the evidence of abominable side effects of vaccines is hidden
– doctors aren’t allowed by the boards to speak against the consensus position
– 99 % of proponents of vaccines are ignorant about all aspects of vaccines and regulations
– most people who invoke science don’t know anything about statistics
We routinely see that claim that studies show that some drug doesn’t cause some disease. But all the study shows is nothing: no effect at all or an effect that doesn’t reach STATISTICAL significance. Most people don’t know anything about science or statistics and don’t understand that.

simple-touriste
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 7:19 pm

“You can barely get laws mandating that kids get vaccines”
“Barely”, but you STILL can get these abominable predatory/fascist laws with the support of the pro-business anti-CAGW crowd (Forbes, junkscience, etc.) and the leftist “pro-science” CAGW “anti-evolution den@r” crowd (SkS, Scienceblog, etc.).
Did you say anything when they came after “anti vax” aka the people who just wanted to apply the scientific method, or even usual medical principle “first do no harm” to vaccine? Where were you?
Sorry, I think you got what you deserve if you allowed vaccine criticism to be suppressed by law (medical “ethics”).
Ah ah ah. I am dancing on your trial. (No really.)
See something say something applies here.
See suppressing of dissent, say something.

Farmer Ted.
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 7:46 pm

Whereupon penalties will be levied against firms which also operate outside the state of California. i.e. the State of California intends to gain funds from external sources.
This should be interesting to watch. The reaction could be weighty.

TRM
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 8:38 pm

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/#

Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 2, 2016 3:06 pm

I think what they are trying to say is that the truth and facts are Unfair Competition. It’s sad when the honest are in power and the honest are the victims. Far from what the Founding Fathers ever imagined.

Goldrider
Reply to  higley7
June 2, 2016 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.

AllyKat
Reply to  higley7
June 2, 2016 7:44 pm

Yes, but consider who is on the Supreme Court, and what the ideology of the new ninth justice will be. We already have four who vote in lockstep, and decide what they want to rule before actually considering what the Constitution or law says. The new justice will likely provide the majority vote. It will be worse than when Kennedy was the “swing” vote: he occasionally would make a sensible ruling.
We are doomed, and that statement may not be hyperbole. 🙁

mario lento
Reply to  AllyKat
June 2, 2016 7:54 pm

AllyKat:
It’s hard to know where you stand, could you be specific or ellaborate? Judges should apply the law and follow the Consitution. If they decided they would follow the law, before hand, it does not much matter. Judges should be loathe to legislate from the Bench. That is precisely what Justice Roberts did. That’s extraordinary and it was wrong.

MarkW
Reply to  higley7
June 3, 2016 9:16 am

The only time Justice Roberts legislated from the bench was when he decided that he was going to ignore the plain language of ObamaCare and ruled based on what he presumed the legislators meant, rather than what they wrote.

zoology
Reply to  higley7
June 4, 2016 12:43 pm

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.”

Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 2, 2016 3:32 pm

If Shell, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobile and Chevron found it impossible to operate in Cali, and shut off supplies, a supermajority of Californians would stop the state government’s lunacy pretty quickly. Governor Brown could grab the microphone and proclaim, “Stopping fossil fuel burning is better for our state,” but I think this would fail.

Sparky
Reply to  lftpm
June 2, 2016 4:16 pm

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

Reply to  lftpm
June 2, 2016 7:26 pm

Gov Brown’s family fortune was made in corrupt representation of Indonesian Oil (read Royal Dutch Shell fellow travelers) Democrats have a very dirty underbelly in the history of fleecing the public in the name of environmentalism

V. eng
Reply to  lftpm
June 2, 2016 10:44 pm

Problem for them is the production wells they have in CA and the refineries there. Lots of capital tied up and also supplies for other states. The interstate commerce effects will get this in Federal Courts quickly but this is in the 9th circuit, the most liberal – leftist in the country. Then it will be off to the Supreme Court, making the filling of the empty seat critical.
So let CA try this, it’ll be fun to watch. It will also be a disaster for the economy of California and surrounding states.

MarkW
Reply to  lftpm
June 3, 2016 9:17 am

The most liberal, and also the most over ruled. By far.

Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 2, 2016 6:40 pm

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.

Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 2, 2016 8:17 pm

that would require you to argue point of law, not point of fact – If the law says everyone must carry a plate of custard to protect them from space clowns, you can’t easily (or cheaply) argue that space clowns don’t exist – the court is there to examine whether you were or were not carrying your plate of custard. If the facts say you weren’t.. you have broken the law –

Logos_wrench
June 2, 2016 1:57 pm

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

Bryan A
Reply to  Logos_wrench
June 2, 2016 2:26 pm

My dawg once suffered from Scootus

Goldrider
Reply to  Bryan A
June 2, 2016 5:12 pm

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

Tim
June 2, 2016 1:59 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  Tim
June 2, 2016 2:38 pm

We can always do what the soviets did. Just declare that anyone who disagrees with the government is mentally incompetent and lock them up.
When that doesn’t work, assign them to work camps in remote regions, where reporters aren’t permitted.

BFL
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 4:42 pm

Or most any Islamic country, perhaps soon to be that kind of (Islamic) Europe, oh wait already headed there (maybe we be next):
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/27/you-tweet-a-lot-watch-your-tone-cops-threaten-dutch-man-for-opposing-govt-mass-migration-plans/

AllyKat
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 7:45 pm

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

hanelyp
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 8:44 pm

Soviet enforcers had an advantage, a largely disarmed opposition.

Tim
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2016 5:23 am

No no, reporters will be permitted. There they can craft wonderfully inspiring stories about all the “professional help” that those delusional deniers are getting so that eventually they can rejoin society. And on the front gate a big welcoming sign that says “Consensus macht frei” .

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2016 9:19 am

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.

June 2, 2016 2:00 pm

“Broad consensus” If that is all it takes to remove the right of free speech, heaven help you.

Goldrider
Reply to  David Johnson
June 2, 2016 5:13 pm

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

AllyKat
Reply to  Goldrider
June 2, 2016 7:46 pm

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”.

B
Reply to  David Johnson
June 3, 2016 7:13 am

+1

Max
June 2, 2016 2:03 pm

I suggest that since CO2 is so deadly and the suppliers so evil that the only safe thing to do eliminate all ;fossil’ fuel delivery and use in Calif rather than risk future law suits. If the people of this left coast want to save the world they can start with thenselves.

lance
Reply to  Max
June 2, 2016 2:18 pm

that would the ‘wake up’ call to them!

Bryan A
Reply to  Max
June 2, 2016 2:29 pm

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

Reply to  Max
June 2, 2016 2:39 pm

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

george e. smith
Reply to  Max
June 2, 2016 3:25 pm

Well I think California should first immediately prohibit the sale, or use of fossil fuels such as petroleum and any products made from petroleum or natural gas, or of any contrivance or machine capable or operating on fossil fuel products. Once such products become illegal to sell for use in California, or sold from California to other locations, then it is ok to pursue prosecution of anyone advocating their use.
g

John Harmsworth
Reply to  george e. smith
June 2, 2016 5:04 pm

Let’s expand on that approach. How can it be possible to produce or sell these products while being aware that they are destroying the planet? Are they destroying the planet? The law says they are; ignorance of the law is no excuse, ergo anyone who sells or uses these products must be prosecuted.
Once the state loses a few cases I would assume they will be fighting suits for malicious prosecution like ants at a picnic. If they have any recall procedure, there’ll never be a better political career to destroy than this junior Nazi. Disgusting!

Ryan
Reply to  george e. smith
June 4, 2016 1:48 pm

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

Merv
Reply to  george e. smith
June 5, 2016 10:08 am

How will the rich get around in their private jets that hold 5 people and then drive away from the private hangers in there Prius. Unbelievable!!!! I would love for some of these folks to work in any town in America and see how real people live
and survive….they are so out of touch with reality it’s laughable.

Anthony Hedayat
Reply to  Merv
June 5, 2016 1:25 pm

Yes, they are out of touch with reality but we have allowed them to be in our Halls of government. This is what makes them dangerous. These people must be removed from office…and not soon enough.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Max
June 2, 2016 3:41 pm

#Max: The punishment that needs to be metted out here should go to the elected officials in Sacramento if this becomes law, not to California’s economy by denying the state its need for fossil fuels.
If this does become law, I would be quite surprised if the constitutionality of it is not challenged…and challenged all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. However, the very idea that some of the SCOTUS judges might agree with the law is an abomination as is the potential law itself.
The road to totalitarianism is paved not just with the greed for power and control, but with ignorance as well.

Jtom
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 2, 2016 4:43 pm

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.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 2, 2016 6:30 pm

And, like the road to Hell, the road to totalitarian democracy is paved with good intentions, and decorated with the nation’s flag..

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 2, 2016 6:43 pm

@Jtom: No. Just stop and think for a minute.
What is going to happen if you deny the entire state access to fossil fuels? The state’s economy (the largest in the union I believe) is probably going to decline sharply if it does not totally shut down. What will happen then? The effects of that shutdown is going to reverberate throughout the entire U.S. economy and will probaby send us into a deep recession. The stock market will crash, and we ALL lose considerable value in our IRAs and 401Ks and other investments. Layoffs with begin and unemployment will shoot up nationwide.
I understand it when you say that the majority in California are responsible for what is happening in Sacramento because the majority put these irrepsonsible officials in office to begin with. However, I would like to suggest to you that you should not succumb to the same thought process issue that leftists are regularly accused of: Allowing your emotions to shutdown your ability to think critically and rationally and draw conclusions based on facts.
What is needed is for the the people of California to be enlightened on the subject of CAGW with the facts that the alarmists and activists cannot dispute. The state’s population needs to realize that they have been had on the issue of climate. If and when that happens, the behavior of state officials in Sacramento will hopefully reflect it.

markl
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 2, 2016 8:15 pm

CD in Wisconsin commented: “… because the majority put these irrepsonsible officials in office to begin with. …..”
Common misconception. Yes the majority of voters are responsible but only 40% of the people vote. Majority = 20%+. Americans are an easy target because of their apathy to politics and government. Face it, Capitalism has been good for the US and few can tell the difference anyway. Despite all the hype and bluster AGW caused problems for the citizens has been negligible to none so far. We fret over things like this because they are symptomatic of totalitarianism but the average Joe not so much. Example; Look at all the Federal land grabs to “protect wilderness and the environment” and “make parks (that no one can go to)” in the last 7 years…. the spin that’s believed is “it’s for the people”.

simple-touriste
Reply to  markl
June 2, 2016 9:03 pm

“Americans are an easy target because of their apathy to politics and government”
Maybe voters just don’t have any choice except between anti privacy right people (“pro life”) and anti privacy right and anti every other right (“pro choice”) people, with both groups supporting global surveillance and opposing the right to encrypt data and the 1st amendment right of Apple to not write program that destroy privacy?

markl
Reply to  simple-touriste
June 2, 2016 9:28 pm

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

South River Independent
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 2, 2016 9:42 pm

CD – I do not think there is any intelligent life left in California. Smart people left the state long ago. Of course, I have a similar problem living in the (un)free state of Maryland where we immediately adopt every ignorant idea coming out of California. The sacrifices we make to live close to family. Well, at my age, if I am lucky I have about ten more years; twenty, if I am unlucky.

South River Independent
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 2, 2016 9:48 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 3, 2016 9:22 am

Didn’t they defend slavery by claiming that it was a right to privacy?

Tom Halla
June 2, 2016 2:03 pm

if they tried, the California legislature could not produce a more unconstitutional bill. What next, establishing the Green Church and madate tithing? I agree with Logos_wrench that Hillary just might appoint someone to the court that would approve of this atrocity.

benofhouston
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 2, 2016 3:26 pm

Seriously. I mean, there’s nothing else to say. This is an attempt to overthrow the constitution in the most blatant of ways.
One upside. Hopefully, it will finally cause people to wake up and say “enough is enough”.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 2, 2016 5:15 pm

Hillary should be asked where she stands on this. Hell, Trump should should make a statement and then challenge her on it. I want to hear Trump use ( learn?) some new adjectives. Odious, totalitarian come to mind. He can ad tremendous if he can’t help himself.

Sleepalot
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 2, 2016 11:16 pm

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

Tom in Florida
June 2, 2016 2:05 pm

“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 .

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 2, 2016 2:26 pm

Absolutely! Is there any town or other jurisdiction in California with a skeptic bent? Even one would do.
If this law passes, it would be great if the first action taken would be against the alarmists, and it seems like there are many who are misleading the public on the dangers of CAGW. How about the model makers?

Bryan A
Reply to  Bob Shapiro
June 2, 2016 2:37 pm

And just how in the Sam Hill does being skeptical of anything equate with Unfair Competition anyway.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical that Vaccinations do any good and are more harmful.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical that miniscule Cell Phone radiation poses no threat.
There are Crazyfornians that are skeptical of any number of things.
I guess skepticism of anything will become illegal in Crazyfornia.

Sparky
Reply to  Bob Shapiro
June 2, 2016 4:34 pm

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.

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
June 2, 2016 6:09 pm

Bryan A — my thoughts exactly. Even assuming that AGW is going to do us all in, how do you further your commercial interests by denying it? Simply being called out for doing so will get people to boycott your business. This is surreal.

R.S.Brown
June 2, 2016 2:05 pm

Anthony,
What will be the status of California meteorologists who publically express “doubts”
about anthropogenic-induced climate change… or even run a blog where such
doubts might be publicized ?
…there’s a chill in the air.

Gabro
Reply to  R.S.Brown
June 2, 2016 3:11 pm

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.

Editor
Reply to  R.S.Brown
June 2, 2016 3:31 pm

I would speculate the “status” would rapidly become “mobile”…
FWIW, I have already established legal residence in Florida and I’m working on getting all my stuff relocated… 30 years accumulation is a lot of stuff to toss… and deferred maintenance to do…
California has become a good place to be from…

Tom in Florida
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 4:01 pm

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

Hifast
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 4:58 pm

+1

gnomish
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 5:25 pm

florida ain’t marin. land is cheap but there is a deep vein of appalling ignorance.
in marin, the fast checkout lanes say ’20 items or fewer’.
that kind of literacy, in florida, will never be.
where i’m living, it’s a rival for the fanatic control freakishness of texas.
and this is the state where goat raping is common in the news.
the activists are here in force, too.

george e. smith
Reply to  R.S.Brown
June 2, 2016 3:31 pm

Well I do not have ANY doubts that the climate results predicted to occur within the State of California by the present climate models, correctly predict what is known to have already occurred or not occurred.
That is they so far cannot predict what is known to have already come to pass. I make no assertion about their ability to predict anything that may happen in the future, only that which they have already predicted would occur.
G

rocdoctom
June 2, 2016 2:09 pm

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  rocdoctom
June 2, 2016 3:59 pm

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

Owen
June 2, 2016 2:12 pm

Almost unbelievable. What a sad day for the once great United States of America, the land of the free.

Reply to  Owen
June 2, 2016 2:25 pm

In a nation in which those convicted of “hate crimes” can be given additional, extra-special sentences and those who honestly debate scientific facts be condemned to prison (thank you, Bill, Nye, the Science Guy!), it seems that the United States Constitution has been well and truly trashed.

Marcus
June 2, 2016 2:12 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  Marcus
June 2, 2016 2:40 pm

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

BillyV
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 6:25 pm

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.

Phillip Bratby
June 2, 2016 2:14 pm

The world is going mad.

MarkW
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 2, 2016 2:45 pm

Not going. Gone.

June 2, 2016 2:15 pm

And Jefferson wept…

June 2, 2016 2:17 pm

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

TA
Reply to  Alexander Feht
June 2, 2016 3:12 pm

We’ll know in about nine months.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 4:00 pm

Think we’ll get to November, do ye?

gnomish
Reply to  Alexander Feht
June 2, 2016 5:27 pm

please accept my general appreciation for your comments, alexander feht.

June 2, 2016 2:20 pm

May we know the names of the nutcases who are backing this little piece of legislative art? Do we have no chance of sending someone home in November?

Dale Muncie
June 2, 2016 2:20 pm

They will stop at nothing!

H.R.
June 2, 2016 2:21 pm

Not good.
So where is one to go? Skeptics might become the first climate change refugees, although political climate change asylum-seekers might be a better term.
Perhaps we can seek political asylum in Mexico…

TA
Reply to  H.R.
June 2, 2016 3:22 pm

Don’t go running scared. That’s what they want you to do.
This thing is just getting started. There will be a lot of pushback on this. Remember, the VI AG has already withdraw his prosecution, and he did so for the very same reason the others, including those in California, will do the same: They can’t prove that CAGW is real, and therefore they cannot prove anyone lied about it, which is the requirement for a charge of fraud.
The California legislature is proposing to violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens. Every state in the Union has a stake in this not happening.
This is the future if the Liberals get elected to the presidency: A walk into tyranny.
If Trump gets elected, then he will restored the U.S. Constitution and take on these Totalitarians.

benofhouston
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 3:28 pm

At least we won’t be fighting alone on this. There is one group that believes in the first amendment more than anyone: the media. Attacking the first amendment even tangentially is the best way to get them on your bad side.

benofhouston
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 3:31 pm

And please don’t call these people liberals.
The basis of liberalism is that they feel the government should help and care for people. While you can say their goals are naive or fundamentally flawed, you cannot say that this power grab banning opposing views is liberal. I cannot think of a more illiberal thing.
This is the difference between Sanders Socialism and Stalinist Communism. Force and the trampling of basic rights. One of these is a bad idea. The other is a living nightmare.

Mark T
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 5:45 pm

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

Hugs
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2016 7:27 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2016 9:24 am

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

Gabro
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2016 9:38 am

benofhouston
June 2, 2016 at 3:28 pm
As the Stein affair shows, not all the media are willing to overcome their political ideology to support the free speech rights of conservatives. But you’re right that even some Leftists will do so for their opponents, out of self-interest.

AllyKat
Reply to  H.R.
June 2, 2016 7:54 pm

Ooo, I think you just figured out the REAL design of the bill: creating “climate change refugees”. If the environmental climate will not cooperate, the political climate will just have to suffice.

Louis
June 2, 2016 2:21 pm

“The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change…”
If that is so, can anyone point me to the authoritative document that provides the exact causes, extent, and current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change? From what I’ve seen, those pronouncements are highly speculative and keep changing from year to year. Where is this authoritative list so I can be sure not to publicly disagree with anything on it whenever I happen to be in California? For example, is the prediction that children will not know what snow is on the list of future impacts that cannot be disagreed with?

MarkW
Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 2:48 pm

We have reached the point where politicians are declaring scientific truths.
And to think, so many of our trolls constantly whine whenever we spend too much time talking about politics.
I wonder if any of them will have the courage to show up on this thread?

MarkW
Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 2:49 pm

Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest that just posting to a site like this, no matter where you may live will mean CA politicians will try to sue you.

TA
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 3:27 pm

I plead guilty to CAGW skepticism. I’ve seen no evidence of it. Perhaps the California politicians could show us some evidence proving it exists. It shouldn’t be that difficult, they can just use the same evidence they are using to write this new law.

Owen in GA
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 5:48 pm

Let them try! By the formerly sacred constitution if a state wishes to sue someone from another state, it must be done in Federal Court, under US rules and laws not those of the state. Now if I were to have business in California, I would forgo any ventures there and divest myself of any holdings possible.
The oil companies should suddenly get extremely safety conscious and find a need to do pipeline maintenance on EVERY pipeline leading into California for about a month when this is in final reading/vote form. Also all the refineries should suddenly get VERY safety conscious and shutdown for any niggling problem that has been around for 20 years, running California out of refined products. Maybe they should do a state safety recall on all petroleum products as it has been determined by the state of California to be calamity of first order to use the product as intended, followed by a complete withdrawal of the product from the market in California. This should be followed by withdrawal of natural gas and coal deliveries as well. California needs to lead the nation in “decarbonization”!
Of course it would be nice if the companies would let Arizona, Nevada and Oregon know ahead of time so they can mobilize the National Guard to the border to prevent refugees from escaping the mess they made.
(apologies to our host for locking him in with the crazies, but hopefully my California relatives (in the Sacramento and Chico areas) won’t cause him too many problems!)

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 5:24 pm

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.

Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 6:57 pm

“The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change…”
Seems that this Bill would declare a scientific theory as having the status of truth, which offends the first part of the First Amendment forbidding the establishment of religion.
Litigation could take the Form of the Scopes Monkey Trial, not on the basis of which side of the debate is correct, but on the power of the State of California to declare that expression of “incorrect” scientific beliefs is unlawful.

Bryan A
June 2, 2016 2:25 pm

Sounds more and more like the world in the work of fiction (now fast becoming a work of Faction) of Ayn Rand…”Atlas Shrugged”…
Though I do have to ask for a little clarification Anthony. In the third paragraph you wrote
==================================================================================
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
==================================================================================
How retroactive applies to a future date. Did you mean Jan 1 2012?
Thanks

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
June 2, 2016 2:50 pm

No he means that actions that occurred prior to Jan 1, 2013 can be acted on, under this bill.

Editor
Reply to  Bryan A
June 2, 2016 3:09 pm

If I can answer as I see it : the 4-year limit can be ignored until Jan 1 2021. ie, an organisation can be prosecuted for any sceptical statement or sceptically-related action at any time in the past, provided charges are laid by Jan 1 2021. Nasty.

Louis
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 2, 2016 3:36 pm

Nasty, and a violation of the U.S. Constitution against ex post facto laws. You can’t prosecute a crime that occurred before the law was passed. I’m sure they thought about that and have a rationale already thought out. They will probably claim that they’re only clarifying parts of the UCL (unfair competition law), which is a law that is already in effect. But they will need a sympathetic liberal court to bend the Constitution for them if this law is to remain on the books. That will take years, so the law will have its intended chilling effect on skeptics regardless.

commieBob
June 2, 2016 2:25 pm

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

Kevin Angus
Reply to  commieBob
June 2, 2016 2:37 pm

This should be tied up in courts for a couple of days (Sorry Mark) You would think everyone would be up in arms just over the proposal clearing committee – I hope they video this when it hits the senate floor, this may be the bill to open the door for republicans

Goldrider
Reply to  Kevin Angus
June 2, 2016 5:18 pm

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

TA
Reply to  commieBob
June 2, 2016 3:30 pm

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

benofhouston
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 3:33 pm

The fact that an elected official wrote it and had enough support to get it this far is chilling by itself.

Editor
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 3:37 pm

The problem is the tens of thousands of lives ruined while the first test case works up to the supreme court over a decade…

Gamecock
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 4:25 pm

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

commieBob
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 4:43 pm

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

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

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

Even if you win, you lose.

Duster
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 5:38 pm

benofhouston June 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Actually, it is no surprise that an elected official wrote it. One of the things that is frequently neglected in what passes for Civics classes these days is that the Bill of Rights is intended not to support democracy but to protect individuals from the potential excesses of democracy – the tyranny of the mob. We currently hear about “democracy” as if it were uniformly a good thing, rather than the best of a wide array of port choices. But democracy unfettered leads to situations as bad as any that can be found in history. Study the execution of Socrates and the subsequent decline of Athens, the death of Julius Caesar (who arguably needed it) at the hands of a “quorum” of the Roman senate (it has been argued that Caesar was legally executed rather than murdered since the action was taken by a senate quorum), ands consider the role democracy in Adolf Hitler’s rise power. He wasn’t elected, but the man who appointed him Chancellor was.
Elected officials enact laws that they believe will benefit their constituents, and if a minority of those are unhappy, the elected fellow simply shrugs. If they weight their “constituents” by their bank roll, then money talks – votes. What is disturbing is that the bill was framed at all, since it plainly suspends the First Amendment. But then you consider other limits of free speech – some apparently reasonable and others not so much, or at all. You literally cannot joke about hijacking or bombs in an airport without risking arrest. You can use the wrong literature in a college English class and be convicted of everything including sexual harassment of students by assigning say D. H. Lawrence to read.

commieBob
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2016 3:36 am

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

Amen! When I was young we were told that our freedom was our greatest asset. It was what separated us from the evil Nazis and Soviets. Somehow, we’ve lost sight of that.

MarkW
Reply to  TA
June 3, 2016 9:29 am

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.

June 2, 2016 2:26 pm

““deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.””
Yeah, except they really won’t go after those folks,
they’ll go after “climate skeptics” instead.

Kevin Angus
Reply to  JohnWho
June 2, 2016 2:40 pm

““deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.””
that sounds like a two-way street, bring Al in and ask why there is still ICE!

commieBob
Reply to  Kevin Angus
June 2, 2016 3:06 pm

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

Gerard van Rijswijk
June 2, 2016 2:28 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  Gerard van Rijswijk
June 2, 2016 2:51 pm

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

benofhouston
Reply to  Gerard van Rijswijk
June 2, 2016 3:34 pm

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

Hugs
Reply to  Gerard van Rijswijk
June 3, 2016 7:35 am

In theory, that should be possible. But when courts get politicized enough, it might be difficult to get a fair treatment. This is what happens all the time all over the world. People want to control their political opponents with legislation.

MarkW
Reply to  Hugs
June 3, 2016 9:30 am

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.

June 2, 2016 2:29 pm

I think it is time to free ourselves from the preconception that environmentalism is equivalent to humanism, the environmentalists seems to be a greater threat to humans and civilization than climate change can ever become.

gnomish
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 2, 2016 5:29 pm

respect to Sci or Fi. another commenter i appreciate.

JP Miller
June 2, 2016 2:30 pm

I lived in the Bay Area for 22 years and it is hard for most normal people to appreciate how looney-tunes most people are in that State, especially in that part of it. And many of these are people with Masters and PhD degrees, so in theory not “stupid.”
I don’t think those of us who grew up in the 20th Century appreciate that belief systems can and still do overwhelm reasoned examination of facts. We like to think such broad-scale social behavior (belief systems with questionable factual basis) are something “of the past” when people were in the thrall of metaphysical/ religious belief systems.
Well, the reality about humanity is that we are just as susceptible to irrational belief systems now as we were then. Science is of no help. Lack of a belief in “God” is no help. We want to so desperately believe in something “bigger than ourselves” that vast numbers of us will not only believe in nonsense, but will want to forcibly prevent others from having different opinions.
The “death of God” is showing its ugly consequence.

Marcus
Reply to  JP Miller
June 2, 2016 2:35 pm

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

JP Miller
Reply to  Marcus
June 2, 2016 3:09 pm

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.

Reply to  JP Miller
June 2, 2016 3:16 pm

Are you sure JP?
For example, a ME PhD college professor has been advocating using propane as a working fluid power plants instead of water because it is more efficient. Incredibly stupid.
Advanced degrees indicate specialized knowledge not advanced intelligence. I had 5 PhD geologist tell me I could not comment on technical issue. My response was it was high school chemistry and nuclear physics. Both of which they got wrong.
Part of not being stupid, is being skeptical. For example, I new reactor engineer fresh out college was surprised that the old guy was skeptical of AGW. I promptly got links to USA Today stories on GW. I asked him how many times he cited USA Today in his thesis. A few years later he was skeptic.

gnomish
Reply to  Retired Kit P
June 2, 2016 5:31 pm

r. kit p –
you don’t indulge the dummies a bit. you call em as you see em and don’t care if it triggers some wuss into his safe space.
i appreciate your comments .

TA
Reply to  JP Miller
June 2, 2016 3:39 pm

JP Miller wrote: “Well, the reality about humanity is that we are just as susceptible to irrational belief systems now as we were then. Science is of no help. Lack of a belief in “God” is no help. We want to so desperately believe in something “bigger than ourselves” that vast numbers of us will not only believe in nonsense, but will want to forcibly prevent others from having different opinions.”
And all this is complicated by the Leftwing News Media spewing lies in all directions. The Leftwing News Media is probably the biggest threat to the freedoms of Americans that exist.
A self-governing country like the U.S. cannot govern itself properly without the people knowing the truth, and they are not getting the truth from the Leftwing News Media, they are getting Leftwing propaganda and lies that create false realities.
Nine months will tell the tale. Then we will see which direction the U.S. is going. Here’s hoping it is to the Right.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  JP Miller
June 2, 2016 8:25 pm

“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.

stuartlynne
June 2, 2016 2:31 pm

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.

B
Reply to  stuartlynne
June 3, 2016 7:43 am

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.

June 2, 2016 2:33 pm

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

MarkW
June 2, 2016 2:36 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 8:11 pm

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

Gerald Machnee
June 2, 2016 2:43 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
June 2, 2016 2:53 pm

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

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 3:27 pm

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.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
June 2, 2016 6:50 pm

Definitely. And why not all plastic products too.

James of the west
June 2, 2016 2:47 pm

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

Hats off...
June 2, 2016 2:48 pm

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

AllyKat
Reply to  Hats off...
June 2, 2016 8:11 pm

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.

June 2, 2016 2:49 pm

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

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

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

davidmhoffer
June 2, 2016 2:50 pm

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

Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 2, 2016 3:53 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  dbstealey
June 2, 2016 4:06 pm

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

gnomish
Reply to  dbstealey
June 2, 2016 5:36 pm

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.

Reply to  dbstealey
June 2, 2016 6:26 pm

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

Sleepalot
Reply to  dbstealey
June 3, 2016 12:07 am

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

Dodgy Geezer
June 2, 2016 2:50 pm

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

MarkW
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 2, 2016 2:55 pm

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

John Harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
June 2, 2016 5:53 pm

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

Jumbofoot
June 2, 2016 2:51 pm

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.

Editor
Reply to  Bubba Cow
June 2, 2016 3:56 pm

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

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Jumbofoot
June 2, 2016 5:56 pm

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

June 2, 2016 2:53 pm

“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.

DCS
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2016 3:14 pm

Read the actual statute and see my comment below.

Louis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2016 3:24 pm

Nick, did you miss this quote from the article:

This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.

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

Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 3:47 pm

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

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

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Slipstick
Reply to  Louis
June 2, 2016 6:35 pm

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

michael hart
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 2, 2016 4:31 pm

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

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 2, 2016 6:10 pm

The “Hypocrit polka”

Reed Coray
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2016 7:32 pm

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.

Reply to  Reed Coray
June 2, 2016 7:48 pm

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

Reed Coray
Reply to  Reed Coray
June 2, 2016 8:49 pm

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

Reed Coray
Reply to  Reed Coray
June 2, 2016 9:01 pm

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

Reed Coray
Reply to  Reed Coray
June 2, 2016 9:13 pm

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

u.k(us)
June 2, 2016 2:53 pm

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

Eliza
June 2, 2016 2:58 pm

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

June 2, 2016 3:00 pm

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

Robert Ballard
Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 2, 2016 4:06 pm

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.”

Reply to  Science or Fiction
June 2, 2016 5:40 pm

{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”

Reply to  jvcstone
June 4, 2016 1:37 am

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

Reasonable Skeptic
June 2, 2016 3:04 pm

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

markl
June 2, 2016 3:05 pm

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.

June 2, 2016 3:05 pm

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?

June 2, 2016 3:10 pm

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

LabUserNumberUnknown
June 2, 2016 3:10 pm

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

June 2, 2016 3:10 pm

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

WBWilson
Reply to  Doreen Agostino
June 2, 2016 6:08 pm

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

DCS
June 2, 2016 3:13 pm

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.

Reply to  DCS
June 2, 2016 3:52 pm

“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.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2016 4:02 pm

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

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2016 4:24 pm

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

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 9, 2016 11:32 am

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

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  DCS
June 2, 2016 3:58 pm

” 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.

Editor
June 2, 2016 3:15 pm

Fun? You assume the court will be rational.

Goldrider
Reply to  Mike Jonas
June 2, 2016 5:20 pm

As opposed to the Salem witch trials.

Reasonable Skeptic
June 2, 2016 3:15 pm

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”.

DCS
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
June 2, 2016 4:08 pm

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

michael hart
June 2, 2016 3:18 pm

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

Gunga Din
June 2, 2016 3:18 pm

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

Owen in GA
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 2, 2016 6:23 pm

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

TA
June 2, 2016 3:29 pm

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

Ktm
June 2, 2016 3:32 pm

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?

Rockofages
June 2, 2016 3:35 pm

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?????

Editor
Reply to  Rockofages
June 2, 2016 4:22 pm

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…

markl
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 5:16 pm

+1

Mark T
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 6:24 pm

Communism is patient.
I disagree, however, that socialists “took over” the UN. No, they founded it.

JohnMacdonell
June 2, 2016 3:39 pm

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?

TA
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
June 2, 2016 3:51 pm

JohnMacdonell wrote: “Bill 1161 seems designed to go after the misinformation campaign run by the oil companies.”
Misinformation? What misinformation?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 4:04 pm

From the alarmists. They should have heeded the old saying “be careful of what you wish for”.

Owen in GA
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 6:46 pm

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.

JohnMacdonell
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 7:13 pm

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

Owen in GA
Reply to  TA
June 2, 2016 7:57 pm

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.

Mark T
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
June 2, 2016 6:29 pm

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.

June 2, 2016 3:40 pm

“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.

Editor
June 2, 2016 3:44 pm

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…

Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 3:51 pm

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.

June 2, 2016 3:55 pm

I am just a Simple Red Neck, so I need a little help here. Why shouldn’t we call these people NAZIs??

MarkW
Reply to  Jon Jewett
June 2, 2016 4:31 pm

Because leftists hate it when you tell the truth about them.

Editor
Reply to  Jon Jewett
June 2, 2016 4:48 pm

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

Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 5:05 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 2, 2016 5:18 pm

today is gonna be ‘pay respects to my favorite commenters day’
Respect, EM

Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 3:56 pm

“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?

Editor
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 5:10 pm

No.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 6:53 pm

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.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Owen in GA
June 2, 2016 7:27 pm

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.

katherine009
June 2, 2016 3:57 pm

Breathtaking. And terrifying.

BoyfromTottenham
June 2, 2016 3:59 pm

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?

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
June 2, 2016 5:25 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  cdquarles
June 2, 2016 7:38 pm

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.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
June 2, 2016 7:30 pm

Left is using “Atlas Shrugged” as their Playbook.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
June 2, 2016 7:59 pm

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”

Alex
June 2, 2016 3:59 pm

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.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Alex
June 2, 2016 4:21 pm

“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…

Alex
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 4:30 pm

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?

MarkW
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 4:33 pm

EU != US

Reply to  Alex
June 2, 2016 5:31 pm

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  cdquarles
June 2, 2016 6:33 pm

The word means “embodiment”!

Reply to  cdquarles
June 2, 2016 6:39 pm

Indeed, that would be the literal translation from Lain. A thing that has a body/corpus.

Mark T
Reply to  Alex
June 2, 2016 6:34 pm

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.

Reply to  Mark T
June 2, 2016 6:44 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  Alex
June 2, 2016 7:39 pm

forgive my quibble, but if you think rights are received by grant- you may not be clear on the concept of rights.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Alex
June 8, 2016 8:28 am

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.

Larry Ledwick
June 2, 2016 4:00 pm

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.

Reply to  Larry Ledwick
June 2, 2016 7:57 pm

The bill is very likely Un-constitutional as written and, even if signed into law, subject to challenge on various Constitutional grounds.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Roger Sowell
June 2, 2016 9:16 pm

+1

Sparky
June 2, 2016 4:03 pm

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……….

Alan Robertson
June 2, 2016 4:09 pm

This is the sort of thing which causes men to stand up
and throw down.

TonyL
June 2, 2016 4:09 pm

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  TonyL
June 2, 2016 6:34 pm

And yet profit from these sales!

gnomish
Reply to  TonyL
June 2, 2016 7:42 pm

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.

BillyV
Reply to  TonyL
June 8, 2016 8:49 am

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.

Dems B. Dcvrs
June 2, 2016 4:18 pm

“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.

Todd
June 2, 2016 4:18 pm

The enemy is truly within. No external enemy has come as close to taking away my basic rights as California Democrats are today.

DCS
June 2, 2016 4:18 pm

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.

gnomish
Reply to  DCS
June 2, 2016 11:53 pm

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?

June 2, 2016 4:20 pm

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.

DAS
June 2, 2016 4:21 pm

1984

Reply to  DAS
June 2, 2016 5:07 pm

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

theBuckWheat
June 2, 2016 4:23 pm

It is always tyranny when the truth is no defense.