From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty.
A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.
Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a
“totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”
“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” asked Mr. Frank in a May 31 post.
“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161,” Mr. Frank said.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris belongs to a coalition of 17 state attorneys general that joined forces in March to pursue climate-change skeptics, starting with ExxonMobil.
The floor analysis cites as a rationale for the bill articles published last year by InsideClimate News and the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project accusing ExxonMobil of hiding its research on climate change, which the company has denied.
“By extending the statute of limitations, California has the opportunity to hold these companies fully accountable for their actions,” said the analysis.
The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change, stating that, “There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Walter Olson of the website Overlawyered called the bill “extraordinary,” adding that “the target is clearly public-issue advocacy.”
“Combined with the plans laid by California Attorney General Kamala Harris — part of the alliance of AGs that has sought to investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as ‘climate denial’— the bill would begin laying the legal groundwork for an astonishingly broad campaign of inquisition and, potentially, expropriation,” Mr. Olson said in a May 31 post.
====================================
This is mind blowing, they are suspending the statute of limitations with this language:
342.5.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If convicted, the punishment will be burning at the stake.
AND – speaking out on behalf of the accused will lead a person to be suspected of the same crime.
Even if they use solar to incinerate you, that would be a crime because it contributes to anthropogenic global warming… Come to think of it, they’ll probably make you pay a carbon tax before they light your burn pile. 🙂
Nope. Carbon sequestration for you… 6 feet under in sealed airtight container…
This bill will generate a huge amount of business for lawyers
What’s next? State takeover (nationalization on a statewide scale) of power assets so they can be “managed” in the most politically correct manner?
California already tried this in a “3rd Way” Socialism way via disastrous regulation in every detail under Democrat Gov. Gray “out” Davis. What followed was several years of rolling blackouts and brownouts until we had our ONLY Gov. recall and swapped in a Republican RINO… Aaaahnold. Power has been stable since.
When the white wine can’t be chilled, the TV doesn’t work, and your cell phone can’t be charged, even Californians will take (tepid) action…
For those interested, here is a link to the ‘Unfair Competition’ code of California…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210
Sparky,
The scientists who dare produce a study/data/conclusion that runs counter to the
mainstream climate change chants may NOT be covered by the new California law,
but the publishers (be they corporate or academic) MIGHT be subject to some of the
“unfair practices” provisions.
The “peer reviewers” of such studies might feel a sudden chill coming from over
their shoulders for facilitating the publishing such scientific dissonance/”disinformation”.
Just think of the most liberal (meaning far-reaching) interpretations and applications of
the law that might pop up in a California court, brought by either an AG or some NGO
that feels that it’s nose has been tweaked by a “denial” supporting study.
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200-17210
17200. As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue
or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with
Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
17201. As used in this chapter, the term person shall mean and include natural
persons, corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, associations and
other organizations of persons.
17201.5. As used in this chapter:
(a) “Board within the Department of Consumer Affairs” includes any commission,
bureau, division, or other similarly constituted agency within the Department of
Consumer Affairs.
(b) “Local consumer affairs agency” means and includes any city or county body
which primarily provides consumer protection services.
17202. Notwithstanding Section 3369 of the Civil Code, specific or preventive relief
may be granted to enforce a penalty, forfeiture, or penal law in a case of unfair competition.
17203. Injunctive Relief–Court Orders
Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition
may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders
or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent
the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair
competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any
person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been
acquired by means of such unfair competition. Any person may pursue representative
claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements
of Section 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but
these limitations do not apply to claims brought under this chapter by the Attorney
General, or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this
state.
17204. Actions for Injunctions by Attorney General, District Attorney, County Counsel,
and City Attorneys
Actions for relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court
of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or a district attorney or by a county
counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation
of a county ordinance, or by a city attorney of a city having a population in excess of
750,000, or by a city attorney in a city and county or, with the consent of the district
attorney, by a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name
of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint
of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association, or by a person who has
suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.
Many thanks for Steve Fraser’s link:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=17001-18000&file=17200-17210
It’s very easy to sort this out, the petro companies need to get together and act accordingly
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgq4w4dqKsU
It would be amusing to see the oil companies simply withdraw from doing business in California… Move the refinery ops to China and Texas and sell the stations to independents. .. then only sell to independent shippers if the load is headed to California. Gas would hit $8 a gallon quick… Ought not be all that hard to do either. The refineries here are fairly old and often sit on land that would sell for a bundle (near ports and with water views).
They likely would make more money, with a lower cost basis and shipping costs someone else’s problem…
That is excellent plan.
Side benefit is the California peasants are likely to be very upset with Overlords who proposed the Bill.
Time to buy stock in Pitch Fork and Torch companies…
A couple of years ago, Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY), then the largest producer of natural gas, and second largest producer of oil in The People’s Democratic Republic of California, spun off it’s California businesses, and moved the corporate headquarters to Texas. The spin-off company promptly lost around 97% of it’s value, but is still struggling along. The spin-off just announced a 1 for 10 reverse stock split. The PDR is not a good place to do business.
Your only hope is a man called Donald Trump.
Me-thinks this could backfire badly.
The Cal. Unfair competition code identifies corporations under the ‘persons’ category.
Corporations are “legal persons” under law just about everywhere… That is what the term means.. to in-corpor-ate is to make the body “corpor” of the new legal person…
The law literally makes it illegal to disagree with ANYTHING “scientific”
Which makes it all funny because 100% of the garbage pushed as “science” by the IPCC and warmists is casual correlation at best.
Just think… anything that has come to their perceived “con$ensus” will result in you being thrown in jail and your personal property seized.. They get consensus on believing in god is unscientific or they don’t like the food you eat, or the car you drive, and you just happen to disagree with them…… BOOM… Off to the Gulag you go..
They are not hiding their fascism any more or their desire to total dictatorial control.. America is in serious trouble… and its coming from within…
“and its coming from within…”
At least from West and East coasts. Those in middle, (aka Fly Over Country) are fighting against the Dictatorial Control. 😉
The saving grace is that research regularly finds that 50% of research is wrong.
OK but who are the rats in CA Congress supporting this???
The process is the punishment. But they are playing with fire. This can be turned against the AGW advocates easily, a few competent lawyers and a budget is all it takes. Even, or especially, if the California courts are biased, the case would get to the SCOTUS eventually. And the discovery is something the AGW groups should fear greatly. Drag all the internal document and communications out into the light, it could kill the climate hoax and put all the hoaxers into the cross-hairs of public wrath for a generation.
Remember, California also KNOWS what chemicals cause cancer.
They declare so on almost every door of every business in CA.
Casual causal correlation, at best…
Whatever happened to elected officials swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? Is that oath so easily forgotten by those who brought this legislation?
My heart bleeds for what this country is becoming.
I”m afraid of what is coming. In pre-WWII Japan the thought police were called the Kempeitai. In East Germany, they were called the Stasi. In National Socialist Germany they were called the Gestapo. In Communist China they were the Sīxiǎng Gǎizào. In Stalin’s Soviet Union they were called the Komitet Gosudastvennoy Besopanosti. In our nation they are called democratic socialists or Obamanistas. It doesn’t matter. I’m old and sick and not longer for this world. I do despair for my loved ones. But, I have some hope, if you folks can keep up the fight.
Only in the People’s Republic of California!
And the AG, Kamala Harris, is running for the US Senate …
Kamala Harris is mentioned in this thread.
It’s worth mentioning that she is favored to take Barbara Boxer’s seat in the Senate. There is a Kamala Harris election ad running where Jerry Brown states how great she is in prosecuting environmental cases, so now this aggressive, prejudiced lawyer is going to be voting on our federal legislation.
She will pose another real danger if she gets elected to the U.S. Senate!
I generally disapprove of referring to people as trash, but…
Garbage in, garbage out?
You mean this climate change?
https://tothepoles.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/ice-core-review/
Then by all means prosecute those who say we should ignore the coming ice age and be worried about warmer temperatures.
Or do you mean this forever warm scenario?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
I am still trying to figure out the reasons for warning us of a warmer moister climate.
Speaking for all leprechauns, warmer is better. Our standard outfits don’t shield us against cold. Besides, a leprechaun in a fur coat looks like a:
http://www.therobotspajamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/hostessSnoBall2.jpg
What are they ?? (I admit I am culturally impaired – no TV for 25 years)
Well, here’s hoping for big salmon fly hatches in the waters of the Wallowas …
They look like a frosted baked puffy pastry that I think we called “snoballs”… Mostly sugar and air…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sno_Balls
Pamela,
Looks like a Tribble? If my Star Trek memory is correct, they looked like this except were yellow or maybe pink – multiplied like bunnies, too as I remember…
Heh…the wording on that proposed legislation actually exposes a defense counsel to the same penalties for merely defending a client who wishes to challenge the inquisition. Arguing on their behalf is a form of skepticism.
After I read that the Portland Public Schools decided to ban books which raise any doubt about catastrophic climate change, I thought I couldn’t be more shocked. I was wrong. I don’t care whether the SCOTUS finds this unconstitutional or not, because this represents illegitimate government. If California passes this law, I will not accept it as legitimate. I urge anyone else who values the Constitution to do the same.
This law is blatantly unconstitutional per Article 1 Section 9, ” No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” This law meets both the definition for a Bill of Attainder and ex post facto Law.
It is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If anybody, or any organization goes to trial because of this law, it will be declared unconstitutional. If for some reason, somehow, this law is upheld, it will be time for rebellion.
If it really does criminalize “deceiving or misleading the public on the risks of climate change” then it’s a double edged sword because there’s a lot of folks doing just that. Can’t wait for the headline “California Grand Jury Indicts Al Gore.”
According to the Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/, the bill is dead.
The bill will be back. That is one thing you can count on about Left. They never ever give up grabbing more control, more power, more authority, or more money.
This is a lesson the NRA learned the hard way decades ago. If you give the Left an inch, they come back demanding a foot. Give them a foot, they come back demanding a yard.
Similarly, with Left it is all Take and no give. The Left may dangle something in exchange, but they will jerk it away at last moment, (or have a plan take it away through another demand).
If you have ever wonder why NRA is so steadfast against what seems like an innocuous gun provision, you now know it is because that innocuous gun provision is first slice of, a death by thousand paper cuts.
Absolutely, Dems B. Dcvrs! That is why I’m a Life Member!
From page 2 of the Washington Times article:
“The bill is considered dead because the house-of-origin deadline is midnight Friday and the state Senate is not scheduled to meet again before that. Later this year, however, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process.”
And from the California Legislature web site (quoted in the original post starting this thred, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1161
see the tab on the table “History” which reports:
06/02/16 Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Monning.
05/10/16 Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
05/09/16 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 3766.) (May 3).
04/22/16 Set for hearing May 3.
04/21/16 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3643.) (April 20). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
04/08/16 Set for hearing April 20.
04/04/16 Re-referred to Coms. on E.Q. and JUD.
03/29/16 From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
03/03/16 Referred to Com. on RLS.
02/19/16 From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 20.
02/18/16 Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
If I were running for political office against an incumbent who was an advocate of this bill, I would use that in my campaign material.
Wouldn’t it be rich if there was also a law that outlawed opposition to GMOs? Prosecute all those lefties who go against the overwhelming scientific evidence that says that GMOs are safe. That’ll learn ’em.
Not only does this violate freedom of speech but because AGW has become a religion it also violates freedom of religion. So apparently the following discussion of “science” may become illegal in my home state of California. The Ptolemaic system was at one time the “scientific consensus” so should claiming that the entire universe does not revolve around the Earth become illegal.
But the reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it . Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
Aside for the obvious assault on our 1st amendment right to free speech, I’d say the proposed state law also: 1) violates the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 10 prohibition against passing ex-post-facto laws; and 2) violates the “dormant” Commerce clause under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states.
In any event the proposed law is a damming insult to the Constitution and disgusting to honest men.
Regarding: Goldrider June 2, 2016 at 5:10 pm
This is just straight-up, 100%, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Let them try it. Let it get all the way to the Supreme Court, to be shot down in flames. They know it would never stand; it’s just an intimidation bill, so people will think twice about being seen not giving obeisance to the Green meme. Any constitutional lawyer, hell, even the ACLU would be able to shit-can this doozy with one read. And given the “evidence” for CAGW, I don’t see a route for them to ever enforce it.
————–
While I would agree 100% with your sentiment, it would stand if Hillary Clinton fills the bench as she would. Constitution be be damned. We are so dreadfully close to a permanent and tyrannical government.
I agree with your points. However, their plan is to use your money to go after you, businesses, and organizations. They will use Tax dollars (corporate and personal) to fund their Government Lawyer assault on those who dare speak against their claimed AGW. Their plan is to financially destroy any AGW naysayers who dare to speak up, and to intimidate anyone who might even think about it.
Take a look at what Obama’s EPA and BLM have done to ranchers, property owners, and even attempted to do with a home owner in Tahoe. The Feds hit them with outrageous fines, then order their assets seized. Trying hiring a Lawyer with Zero dollars, especially when there is no Pot of Gold should you win.