California legislature shelves their ugly attempt at killing the first amendment

Yesterday we ran the story: The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

It seems there was some backlash, enough to change directions, as reported this morning on overlawyered.com:

California Senate shelves bill enabling lawsuits against climate “deniers” — for now

By Walter Olson

The California Senate has shelved, at least for now, a bill that would lay the groundwork for a campaign of lawsuits against so-called climate deniers. The California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (Senate Bill 1161), which had passed two committee hurdles, would retrospectively lift what is now a four-year statute of limitations so as to allow unlimited lawsuits under the state’s notoriously pro-plaintiff Unfair Competition Law, or s. 17200, over advocacy related to climate change. While the deadline has now passed for the bill to be enacted on its own under ordinary legislative procedure, it could still pass this year under “gut-and-amend” procedures or a rules waiver. [Valerie Richardson/Washington Times and earlier, Andrew Stuttaford/National Review, Watts Up with That, thanks for quotes in all; earlier]

Source: http://overlawyered.com/2016/06/california-senate-sidelines-bill-widening-suits-climate-deniers-now/

h/t to Roger Sowell

0 0 votes
Article Rating
143 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin Kilty
June 3, 2016 7:31 am

The power of public disapproval does good.

george e. smith
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 3, 2016 10:40 am

So that should give the California voters sufficient time to sweep ALL of those state senators out of office into the retirement homes they all deserve. That is the ones; EVERYONE that voted in Committee to do this, or failed to vote in committee against such un-Constitutional malfeasance.
G

Reply to  george e. smith
June 3, 2016 2:11 pm

George, I looked at the online history of the bill and didn’t see any voting records attached to it. I was thinking along the same lines. Any ideas?

Don
Reply to  Kevin Kilty
June 3, 2016 11:44 am

I think this died because the Alarmist folks realized that it opens them up to liability for their lies in the past. This kind of Marxist thought-police legislation will come back, when they make sure it can only be applied one way.

glen martin
Reply to  Don
June 3, 2016 12:03 pm

Bummer, I was looking forward to the lawsuits against anyone invested in ‘green’ energy and the discovery process to determine whether each and everyone of their statements regarding climate change were true.

Reply to  Don
June 3, 2016 3:34 pm

[SNIP way off topic, inappropriate commentary for this site .mod]

Ilma
Reply to  Don
June 4, 2016 3:31 am

I suspect it died as those trying to enact it were themselves then subjected to searching FOI requests, and didn’t want to reveal any of their dirty laundry. Separately, the RICO protagonists sought PR advice and were advised to drop their attack. So at least their convoluted minds were able to realise that the words they tried to use against others would be used against them.

Reply to  Don
June 5, 2016 8:50 am

Liberals count on time to nullify their lies

patrick bols
Reply to  Don
June 8, 2016 9:40 am

who thought that McCarthyism was dead? This time it is the commies who will revive it.

June 3, 2016 7:31 am

I thought California was the last place on Earth that would approve of “black lists”.

SMC
Reply to  TomB
June 3, 2016 8:20 am

Why in all the world would you think that?

MarkW
Reply to  SMC
June 3, 2016 9:34 am

I’m guessing that it’s because Hollywood is in California.
But what the poster forgets is that leftists have never opposed black lists in general. Only when they are being applied to leftists.

Doonman
Reply to  TomB
June 3, 2016 8:46 am

People who do not live in California must realize that California is a one party state, run by Democrats.
There is no effective opposition to insure legislative check and balance for any issue.
People get the government they deserve. Those who do not care for that system of government are invited to leave, and they are.

MarkW
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 9:35 am

The mayor of San Jose yesterday justified mob violence against Donald Trump supporters. Saying that they brought the violence on themselves because of what they believe.

Bryan A
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 10:20 am

Time for them south bayers to pull up their San PantyJose and elect a Mayor that stands for Equal Rights for even those that they disagree with

SMC
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 10:40 am

Good luck with that. They’re to busy trying to build a socialist utopia.

george e. smith
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 10:42 am

I hate to have to correct your false impression, but in California, we don’t even have any INEFFECTIVE opposition. But I’m sure you did know that; just slipped your mind.
G

CaligulaJones
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 11:23 am

I have a friend who posits that North America is tilted, and all the loonies end up on the Left Coast (counts for both Canada and the US).
Can’t prove him wrong.

Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 2:14 pm

It’ not uncommon for Californians to vote for Republican Governors (remember Arnie?) but they always seem to pack the house with democrats. I’ve never understood how that could happen.

MarkW
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 2:53 pm

Bartleby,
They want their representative to bring home the bacon.
They want the governor to prevent anyone else from getting any bacon.

TA
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 3:18 pm

Doonman June 3, 2016 at 8:46 am wrote: “People who do not live in California must realize that California is a one party state, run by Democrats.”
The numbers are: About 7 million Democrats and 4 Million Republicans in California.

Bryan A
Reply to  Doonman
June 3, 2016 3:55 pm

And 23 million unregistered illegal aliens

Bryan A
Reply to  Doonman
June 5, 2016 3:20 pm

Bartleby
The reason California has held onto a Democratic Majority in the House is that some years ago the district boundaries were carefully recrafted to create districts whose voter distribution would ensure a greater chance for Democrats to be elected

Joel Snider
Reply to  TomB
June 3, 2016 10:41 am

Well, California was first in the nation in sterilizations during the Eugenics days. It’s not surprising that Green – (which I like to call Eugenics on steroids) – would follow along the same path.
Progressives are always at the forefront of these types of movements – particularly when it comes to ramming their policies down the throats of people who don’t want them. Remember – counter-culture types are not open-minded – they are rigidly close-minded. I had that backwards for a long time. The whole ‘I’m alright, you’re alright’ thing is just an enabling bumper-sticker, and it’s always a precursor to the militant second generation that has turned ideals into dogma.

Reply to  Joel Snider
June 5, 2016 9:12 am

mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; ‎
Violence against Conservatives
It seems that your words yesterday insinuated that Republicans deserve to have violence against them because they believe different then you? Is that what you meant? Or are Republican ideals just wrong?
I respectfully request clarification in any form you see fit.
Professor Stephen Greene

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  TomB
June 3, 2016 1:04 pm

California loves Blacklists. It is just that people want their opponents listed, and that their opponents should not be allowed to make such lists themselves.
What is so odd about California is that it votes so Republican and contains so many avowed Democrats. WUWT?
There was a CBC programme today about there being an underground right wing club in Hollywood that dares not speak its name because of the blacklisting that goes on by the Hollywood Left. I wonder how many actors are actually fed up with the climate nonsense and think conservative thoughts? How would we tell? After all, they are actors!

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 3, 2016 1:39 pm

Imagine if some notable actor was to stand up and take the opposite position on climate change. That actor would be lucky to be doing dog food commercials afterwards.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 3, 2016 7:14 pm

Crispin,
“I wonder how many actors are actually fed up with the climate nonsense and think conservative thoughts?”
I suspect a great many, since they work in PR intensive field, and can probably detect the hype for what it is, fairly easily.
“How would we tell? After all, they are actors!”
I think the rather limited numbers of actors who keep showing up repeatedly in various forms of hype, rather than large numbers who actively promote the CAGW, is most likely an indication that many are at least skeptical.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 3, 2016 8:36 pm

That would be a CBC attempt to alert their communist buddies in L. A. that there are enemies under their beds.

AllyKat
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 3, 2016 10:14 pm

There are a few “known” conservatives, though one tends to hear more about those who are somewhat socially conservative (occasionally economically conservative, which I suspect includes many more who are unwilling to admit their leanings even to themselves). I am not sure I have ever read about anyone challenging the AGW line. Of course, even if they DID say anything, it would probably get buried by frantic PR agencies.

Latitude
June 3, 2016 7:35 am

…this won’t be the end of it
They’ll try something else later again

Joel Snider
Reply to  Latitude
June 3, 2016 10:56 am

Absolutely they will. They probably are already. You don’t talk zealots out of anything. You beat them back.

ScienceABC123
June 3, 2016 7:40 am

It’s not over. The progressives/leftists in California will step back, regroup, and plan for their next attempt. They’ll probably prep by demonizing climate change skeptics (a.k.a. “denialists”) more, encouraging climate change advocates (a.k.a.”warmists”) to violent action, blame the skeptics for the violence of the advocates, and push the narrative that the only way to reduce the violence is by criminalizing the skeptics. I give them about 18-24 months before they try again in the state legislature.

SMC
Reply to  ScienceABC123
June 3, 2016 8:17 am

I doubt it takes that long. I imagine it will probably be brought up again, in some form, later this year.

Joel Snider
Reply to  SMC
June 3, 2016 12:32 pm

Or simply implemented via some perversion of due process – likely an executive order or some such.
Obama has showed his minions the way.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  ScienceABC123
June 3, 2016 10:02 am

That was Hitler’s favorite tactic. Did you know the Jews were fined a billion Reichsmarks for Crystal Night?

notfubar
Reply to  ScienceABC123
June 3, 2016 1:05 pm

It’s what they’re doing with Trump campaign events – leftist come to protest, create violence, and then the press blames it on Trump or his followers (I’m not one, but I’ll vote for him as a damage-control action).

Joel Snider
Reply to  notfubar
June 3, 2016 1:51 pm

I’ll say this for the Trump supporters: they need to start watching for the sucker punches when dealing with gutter punks, because you can bet it’s coming.

TA
Reply to  notfubar
June 3, 2016 3:24 pm

It is standard operating procedure for Leftists to blame everything on their opponents. And since the Left has the Leftwing News Media propaganda megaphone on their side, their message gets spread far and wide.
I agree with Joel, too, the Trump supporters ought to watch their backs. If you notice, the Leftist cowards only come at you from behind, when you are not looking, and then run away as fast as they can.

June 3, 2016 7:41 am

Sometimes I’m ashamed to be Human. How pathetic.

Goldrider
Reply to  Tom in Texas
June 3, 2016 8:48 am

Counsel who’s actually READ the constitution must have whispered in someone’s ear.

Charlie
Reply to  Tom in Texas
June 3, 2016 10:23 am

Made me laugh. From that website:
They won’t rest until this is an actual prison inmate conversation:
“What are you in for?”
“Armed robbery and grand theft auto. You?”
“Called Bill Nye a disingenuous a**hole.”

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2016 10:30 am

Chuckles

george e. smith
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2016 10:44 am

He’s also an ingenuous one.
g

george e. smith
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2016 10:46 am

Does one of those ‘ u ‘ s supposed to be an ‘ i ‘ ??
g

Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2016 12:32 pm

Let’s not forget “genuine”.

Aussiebear.
Reply to  Charlie
June 3, 2016 5:34 pm

Or even better…I was framed. The Sun did it!!
Sort of reminds me of Alice’s Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie. Was thrown in jail with Robbers, Murderers and Rapers and was asked the same question. What are you in for? Littering…

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Tom in Texas
June 3, 2016 8:39 pm

New headline! State AG drops effort against free speech!

Tom in Texas
June 3, 2016 7:52 am

Man OH Man signs of insanity, doing over and over the same!!!! But when you make money doing nothing, why not.

Bruce Cobb
June 3, 2016 7:55 am

“We had to destroy democracy in order to save the planet”.

SMC
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 3, 2016 5:10 pm

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

June 3, 2016 7:59 am

there is now book bans in Oregon schools which reference opposing opinions that of the State.

joelobryan
Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 3, 2016 8:17 am

Portland’s school board adoption of that position is clear evidence Climate Change believers are a more religion-faith based than science.

Reply to  joelobryan
June 3, 2016 12:36 pm

Much like those that saw off your head if they don’t like your religion.

MarkW
Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 3, 2016 9:37 am

Leftists believe that children aren’t sophisticated enough to understand that there are differences of opinions on some subjects, so the children have to be protected against any opinion that the politician believes will hurt them.
The problem is that most leftists feel that anyone who doesn’t work for government is a child.

Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2016 12:04 pm

When children grow up and realise they’ve been force-fed lies by the state they can turn violently against those lies. My wife grew up in the last years of the Soviet Union and is so nauseated by the endless political songs, parades and square-bashing that she finds it hard to talk about it. She has a great singing voice but recoils from any organised singing due to revulsion at the memory of the endless hymns of praise to communism as a child-trophy of the system. Which is sad.
Today’s children in the ecofasc1st republic of oregon and other such places will likely have a similar reaction when they reach adulthood and the state fails to legislate against them thinking for themselves.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2016 12:34 pm

Of course, they also believe that Kindergarteners need transgender studies. That’s being put on the curriculum in Washington. No confusion being wrought there.

AllyKat
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2016 10:52 pm

It is like how Cookie Monster has to eat vegetables now so that kids do not think it is okay to only eat cookies. (Because children are too stupid to realize that Cookie Monster is supposed to be funny not a role model.) Personally, I think it is unethical to force an obligate cookievore to eat a diet for which his system is not adapted.
I work as an election officer when possible, and there is an older woman in our local precinct who is SO excited every single time she comes to vote. She is always decked out in red, white, and blue attire, has a massive rhinestone studded flag pin, and she is READY TO VOTE!!! As a naturalized citizen from some socialist/communist country (Cuba, I think), she really appreciates her freedoms.
People who support “one view” ideology either grew up as elites in a one view country or grew up in a free thinking country. I have yet to meet a regular person from an oppressive country who supports limits on thought and speech.

Reply to  Scott Frasier
June 3, 2016 12:35 pm

Are these the same folks who were in charge of ulcer research recommending milk for the cure?

Curious George
June 3, 2016 8:08 am

Able authors of an aptly named bill “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016” are Senators Allen, Jackson, and Leno.
The Ministry of Love is coming. Don’t be fooled by a temporary setback.

tadchem
June 3, 2016 8:21 am

I’m guessing they heard from the Attorneys General who had their climate inquisition quashed.

June 3, 2016 8:21 am

The same bill would have paved the way to sue the IPCC for misleading the world about the risks of climate change. I was kind of hoping this would pass and then I would dare them to sue me.

Mike Smith
June 3, 2016 8:23 am

As a CA resident, I am ashamed. But I am not in the slightest bit scared. The First Amendment trumps any silly laws passed by the State Legislature. So even if they do try again (a sure thing) and they succeed (a real possibility in this crazy state) the law will be rendered moot if not struck down by the Feds and US Supreme Court Justices.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Smith
June 3, 2016 9:38 am

I remember saying the same thing McCain/Feingold and ObamaCare.

Gabro
Reply to  Mike Smith
June 3, 2016 9:45 am

I went to high school with a presently sitting 9th Circuit Court judge. I suspect that she would find nothing wrong with this abominable legislation.

hanelyp
Reply to  Mike Smith
June 3, 2016 10:09 am

The Constitution is nothing but a scrap of parchment if not upheld by good men.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  hanelyp
June 3, 2016 10:33 am

The Tree of Liberty may soon have to be watered.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mike Smith
June 3, 2016 10:49 am

Gotta get by the ninth circuit on the way to Supremacy. It’s like idiots all the way down !!
G

AllyKat
Reply to  george e. smith
June 3, 2016 11:01 pm

That court is so screwy that a fair number of suits are not appealed because the lawyers know that even if they are in the right (no pun intended), the court is a) likely to disagree with them because of ideology or b) so insane that their probable ruling cannot be determined. In some cases there is a risk that an appeal could result in making the problem worse, since a lower court ruling may only affect a state, but the circuit court ruling will apply to the whole circuit.
Appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court is an expensive gamble.

Paul
Reply to  Mike Smith
June 3, 2016 11:43 am

“The First Amendment trumps any silly laws passed by the State Legislature.”
Yep, but you’ll go broke defending yourself in the process.

June 3, 2016 8:24 am

“Killing” a bill like this tends to get like a horror movie plot–until the creators are gone, the monster keeps coming back to life.

jmrSudbury
June 3, 2016 8:25 am

Bring this in, so the ‘experts’ that are hiding the decline, cherry picking dates from the cold 1970s, and such can be brought to justice. I don’t actually condone this, but it would be an unintended consequence of their law. — John M Reynolds

Bryan A
Reply to  jmrSudbury
June 3, 2016 10:25 am

Not sure if it is “Cherry Picking” from the cooler 70’s as much as it is the Start of the much more believable Satellite Record which shouldn’t rely on Proxy data to create a more global temperature record. But the fact that the 70’s was when the satellite records begin is darn convenient

Brad
June 3, 2016 8:31 am

This is how the left work. It floats a trial balloon of their radical agenda then retract it. Next time, it doesn’t seem so radical as it is now old news. There is less opposition. They continue to do that until all decent as been worn down and eroded. Then they get their way. Meanwhile the climate inquisition continues.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Brad
June 3, 2016 10:29 am

Well put Brad. Thumbs Up!

AllyKat
Reply to  Brad
June 3, 2016 11:33 pm

I recently read an essay that pointed out that when the first “test tube” baby was born, many people and groups expressed concern that the new technology could lead to more children being born to single mothers, gay couples, and a “designer baby” market. Proponents pooh-poohed such ideas and said those things would never happen. Only married couples with fertility problems would use AI technologies, and they would not care what the baby was like, just that they could have one. Fast forward a few decades…
Not trying to start a debate about any particular issue, but it is relevant to many political and scientific proposals. How often are we assured by the sponsors and supporters that “X” will only be used in “Y” capacity, that it will never lead to “Z”, and that “X” is a very limited idea/tool/whatever? Allowing women in the US military to work in active combat positions will not have any far reaching implications, right? Except that there is no longer any reason to exempt women from the draft. Oh sure, no one thinks it will ever be brought back, but all it will take is a REALLY big war, and suddenly a lot of young women will be on the hook. Same-sex marriage will only open up marriage to people who are gay, there is no way that polygamy will be legalized. Well, there have already been a few cases brought to courts seeking to legitimize polygamy.
Whether or not you agree with any/all/none of the above ideas, it cannot be denied that Pandora’s box is an apt metaphor. Once you open the door, you have little control over who/what comes inside the house or what they do. Watch out for moving goalposts.
***Obligatory disclaimer: I am not advocating for or against any of the above ideas or views. I am simply pointing out that there have been legal, political, and social issues that have been sold as “small and simple” and wound up ballooning. In particular, I am pointing out that concerns raised by opponents (or deeper thinkers) often do come to pass, despite assurances from proponents. Depending on your point of view, this may not be problematic. It does raise questions about whether proponents can be trusted to see “the long view” or to admit it if they do.

RH
June 3, 2016 8:32 am

“Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act”. Why specify “Climate Science Truth”. Why not just call it the Truth and Accountability Act, so anyone opposing the governments “truth” can be prosecuted.

MarkW
Reply to  RH
June 3, 2016 9:39 am

I have no doubt that will be the next step.

H.R.
Reply to  RH
June 3, 2016 11:03 am

RH:
You just may have hit on why the bill didn’t go anywhere. It wasn’t broad enough.

Mark from the Midwest
June 3, 2016 8:59 am

This only delays California’s trek to the status of “Third World Country.” I’m sure they will find other means to insure that U6 goes to 30% and that there is negative new business investment in the state.

June 3, 2016 9:34 am

Imprisonment for dissenting ideas? May a Renaissance await us once we pass through this Dark Age.

george e. smith
Reply to  David F Thomas
June 3, 2016 10:52 am

I hope not.
Remember the ‘renaissance’ was followed by the ‘baroque’ era that gave us all that elevator music trash that ends in a vowel !
G

H.R.
Reply to  george e. smith
June 3, 2016 11:50 am

I dunno, George. I’m quite the fan of Bach. He’s a not-too-distant relative as I understood from my grandfather’s cousin, Lillian. She founded a Bach Society in a town of around 10,000 somewhere around 1910-1920. She had a very nice pipe organ in the house the better to play his organ works. Had a16-footer pipe – nice!
Bach’s organ works sound better when you’re 3 feet from the organ than they do in an elevator, I’ll grant you that.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  george e. smith
June 3, 2016 2:48 pm

I’m with you there George, Papa Haydn rescued Western music from sterile stagnation.

Akatsukami
Reply to  george e. smith
June 3, 2016 5:12 pm

Madonna was Baroque?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  george e. smith
June 3, 2016 8:47 pm

That’s a common excuse for becoming a whore

H.R.
Reply to  george e. smith
June 4, 2016 5:25 am

Wait up! Upon further thought, do you realize how hard it is to put a pipe organ in an elevator, George? That’s why they use taped music.

Gary
June 3, 2016 9:37 am

Same kind of bill was submitted in the RI Legislature at Sen. Whitehouse’s indirect instigation. Not going anywhere, but indicative of the totalitarian impulse everywhere.

Amber
June 3, 2016 9:47 am

The egregious attack on peoples right to think and say what they wish fits a pattern of devolution
of basic principles . California is full of wonderful brilliant people ,thankfully they saw what was at stake and sent the mind control freaks packing .
The “science is settled” crap was the start . Of course climate changes ,it continues to warm ,
and humans must have some effect . However the climate is not going to be controlled by humans and what ever course the overwhelming influence of natural variables takes we are just along for the ride . The earth doesn’t have a fever and overall warming is beneficial to living things on earth . Plants ,trees ,sea creatures do better than a cooling world . We will get a return to that some day whether we like it or not . Humans will adapt the other species will have a much harder time .
We should celebrate the warning direction while it lasts .

June 3, 2016 10:16 am

He may not be liked but this must send shivers down their backs-
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/i-was-wrong-trump-will-be-the-next-president-commentary.html

Resourceguy
June 3, 2016 10:42 am

So the official stamp of approval for climate cultural revolution is on hold for now. Thanks for nothing. We will not stay quiet like the Chinese.

TA
Reply to  Resourceguy
June 3, 2016 3:43 pm

Resourceguy wrote: “We will not stay quiet like the Chinese.”
That’s right, we won’t. The Leftists Brownshirts are going to have one heck of a fight on their hands if they try to take away our First Amendment rights. They are not going to be successful.

notfubar
June 3, 2016 11:09 am

Think there’s any chance an early draft or the bill’s author will show up in the RICO20 GMU emails?

Resourceguy
June 3, 2016 11:29 am

We are going to need sanctuary cities for the last followers of science process and fact checking of climate science.

Bitter&twisted
June 3, 2016 11:45 am

Can we have a list of the anti-democratic fascist who voted for this Bill?
Then we would know who to vote out.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2016 12:32 pm

It was passed in committee, so there must have been committee members who voted for it.

Charlie
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2016 1:08 pm

“Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Monning.”
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1161

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2016 2:57 pm

I read that it had been passed by two sub-committees. (not committees as I mistakenly noted above)

Gabro
Reply to  Bitter&twisted
June 3, 2016 12:02 pm

Sponsors of the “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016” are however known.
Primary sponsor and two cosponsors:
https://legiscan.com/CA/sponsors/SB1161/2015

a_generalist
June 3, 2016 12:36 pm

While I’m relieved that this bill is defunct, I agree that it’ll be back. California is run by an increasingly radical left. At this point I think the tendency to extremism is reinforced by the fact that there is no opposition to it at all. Here in the leftest of the left – the SF Bay Area – the unreality is in full swing. People think their food apparently springs into being at Whole Foods, their electricity is produced by unicorns, and economics and history no longer apply because they’re all so smart. Wishful thinking underpinned by highly aggressive special interests like unions and the CTA defines the politcal agenda here. Go have a look at the three fascists who proposed SB 1161 and their funding.

AllyKat
Reply to  a_generalist
June 3, 2016 11:42 pm

Fun story: USDA used to run some sort of educational agricultural display/fair on the Mall every year (or so). School kids would come and learn about how food was grown and raised from actual farmers, and I believe there were even some livestock on display. Classes of kids from DC would come to the fair, most of them had never been outside of the city, let alone near a farm. At one display, a dairy farmer was explaining that milk came from cows. A very skeptical little boy piped up, “Milk doesn’t come from cows, it comes from the STORE!”
This may or may not be apocryphal, but there are a lot of people at USDA chuckling about it.

John Robertson
June 3, 2016 1:29 pm

The do-gooders are keeping strange company.
Seems empathy is unformed in the Eco-nasties, they never seem to be able to consider that their demands may be made on themselves.
Found this on Google;
“Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change.
Watts Up With That? – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
Comes up first on a search for wuwt.
And wikipedia ever wonder why they are failing?
The sponsors of this Truth & accountability bill deserve to be stripped of all assets and dropped into one of our more lovely authoritarian countries.
North Korea needs them.
Presumably these righteous clowns signed/swore an oath to protect the State and Citizens of California against the actions of people like themselves.
Maybe that border fence needs to continue on up the coast.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  John Robertson
June 3, 2016 9:01 pm

The big crash is coming. We persist in living beyond our means. Quantitative easing has to be the last bullet available to forestall devastating deflation caused by demographics and the cultural shift toward economic and scientific illiteracy. When it comes you will see these eco-lefty fascists sitting on the sidewalk begging. I suggest we engage in a brief political discussion with these people. I will try to help the mentally ill if I can tell them from the politically toxic. And I’m not kidding. It is coming!

June 3, 2016 1:36 pm

IMNSHO, so-called “climate change deniers” are passive sheep, just waiting to be sheared. Some people think (apparently) that they’re rather edgy, living on the very precipice of danger, because they make snarky comments on a blog. So, Mark Steyn gets sued in a long, drawn out process, and a US Senator makes noises about RICO lawsuits against us, but not to worry! Some of us have slapped down the other side, on a BLOG.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Exxon Mobil scientists probably know as much about CO2’s real effects on climate as a typical (non-scientist) reader of WUWT. Their management would have to be grossly incompetent not to ask for periodic surveys of climate science, with a view to judging it’s likely impacts on the regulatory environment on their various drilling site. If their management HASN’T kept abreast of climate science, they’re incompetent + negligent. A shareholder lawsuit strike me as the best (probably only) way to find out what they knew, and when they knew it.
Assuming XOM is not so clueless as to have ignored developments in climate science, what has their management done, in terms of educating the public? Given their deep pockets, I’d say “Essentially Nothing”.
Which is another sign of their incompetence, as we can infer from the events in the CA Senate.
I say XOM should be sued, to get them off the fence. Exxon Mobil is “the dog that didn’t bark”. They are part of the problem.
Perhaps when Anthony Watts gets hauled into court for promoting “climate change denialism”, the readers of the blog will collectively look for a more muscular way of dealing with the climate loons….

SMC
Reply to  metamars
June 3, 2016 3:27 pm

“a more muscular way of dealing with the climate loons….”
So what are you suggesting? Armed insurrection, rebellion, revolution? I believe that has been mentioned both directly and indirectly. If that’s not what you are suggesting, then what do you mean by “a more muscular way”?

Reply to  SMC
June 3, 2016 7:48 pm

A shareholder lawsuit is a “more muscular way”. There’s not even a hint of “armed insurrection, rebellion, revolution” in my post…..

SMC
Reply to  SMC
June 3, 2016 8:15 pm

That sounds awfully similar to what the NY AG is proposing/attempting. And he is a climate loon. It’s also the same effort many other climate loons are trying to make, using the Tobacco industry lawsuits as a template. I don’t think this idea of a “more muscular way” is a good one. Besides, Exxon has already said their climate research is in the public domain. Your idea sounds more like a fishing expedition.

Reply to  SMC
June 5, 2016 1:46 am

Another point of attack: Naomi Oreskes has been found to be “out to lunch”, to put it mildly. In fact, as I read “Naomi Oreskes Warps History” http://leftexposed.org/2016/06/naomi-oreskes-warps-history/, she is more likely guilty of fraud than mere incompetence.
In any event, don’t Harvard students deserve to know about the quality of her {cough} {cough} scholarship? So, I’d also recommend organizing a boycott, of Harvard students, against attending her classes. With any luck, Harvard WON’T dismiss her, or even reprimand her. Thus, one can keep appealing to Harvard students, parents of students, and alumni INDEFINITELY to boycott her classes, thus having cause for being able to enlighten students of this elite institution INDEFINITELY about what a scam is being perpetrated.
Until it completely collapses, anyway, and people like Anthony Watts are out of danger.

TA
Reply to  metamars
June 3, 2016 3:54 pm

metamars wrote: “A shareholder lawsuit strike me as the best (probably only) way to find out what they knew, and when they knew it.”
What they knew about what? CAGW? There is no CAGW. There wasn’t any evidence for CAGW when Exxon started in business, and there is no evidence of CAGW now, so what could they know about it, other than it does not exist.
You imply that Exxon knew about CAGW and hid the fact. There is no CAGW to hide. That’s why all these types of lawsuits are going to fall flat on their face because the prosecutors can’t make a valid case for CAGW. The Judge will require more than handwaving as proof.

Reply to  TA
June 3, 2016 7:54 pm

Wrong. I implied that Exxon Mobil knew, as we know, that CAGW is mostly a pack lies, complete with fudging of data and deliberate deception in the framing of otherwise legitimate climate research, on the part of some of the CAGW “industry” (see LaFramboise’ 50:1 interview.). Exxon Mobil is the “dog that didn’t bark”. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Do you have even the slightest doubt that if Anthony Watts gets hauled into court for facilitating climate heresy, that Exxon Mobil will be nowhere to found, to support him? I have no such doubt. And even if I should somehow wrong on my expectation of how they would behave in this scenario, who can claim that they are acting responsibly, in the interest of their shareholders, by being so invisible in the ongoing ‘climate debate’??

Richard G
Reply to  metamars
June 3, 2016 4:31 pm

metmars, collectively looking for a more muscular way of dealing with “climate loons” as you call them (I prefer to call them CAGW alarmists) is not the answer. The answer is to not support them politically or financially.

Reply to  Richard G
June 3, 2016 8:03 pm

Huh? Isn’t most of climate science, in the US, funded by tax dollars? Where the expectation of how results are to be ‘properly’ framed only too clear…. How exactly would one not support CAGW alarmists, other than by not paying taxes?
Also, while you may be happy enough to engage in a prolonged struggle with CAGW alarmists from the comfort of your living room, (probably limiting your “struggle” to bloggerly disputes), I see people like Anthony Watts in REAL DANGER of getting ruined, financially (and maybe worse) if the “CAGW alarmists” aren’t put in their place.
I’d be most curious to hear Anthony’s opinion about his level of risk.

SMC
Reply to  Richard G
June 3, 2016 8:27 pm

You’re not the only one that sees people like Mr. Watts in “REAL DANGER”. If this law, or something similar to it, ever gets passed and is, somehow, upheld by the courts despite being blatantly unconstitutional, it will open the door to all kinds of political persecution. Everyone who comments on this blog, or works in ‘undesirable’ industries would be at risk. I don’t think anyone commenting here is blind to the implications of this law or others like it.
As for putting the CAGW alarmists in their place, what do you suggest?

Reply to  Richard G
June 3, 2016 9:06 pm

@SMC
“Everyone who comments on this blog, or works in ‘undesirable’ industries would be at risk. I don’t think anyone commenting here is blind to the implications of this law or others like it.”
Do you agree that de facto intellectual leaders like Anthony Watts are far, far more at risk than a “little person”, such as myself? It’s SOP to take out leaders, first. Chicken minus head, all of that. From Stalinist purges to Nazi executions of White Rose Society activist leaders, repressive ideologues go for leaders; and there are plenty of example from the animal kingdom. Humans are tribal, so one needn’t be a chess player to anticipate which people will most likely be targeted.
Rather than sit back and watch this nasty drama play out (or even risk that), I say “take it to them”.
“As for putting the CAGW alarmists in their place, what do you suggest?”
Besides suing irresponsible, fence-sitting fossil fuel companies, there is a crying need fo Citizen to citizen education. I’m a big proponent of using dead trees, and ubiquitous personal printers, for mass citizen-to-citizen pamphleting. Very American, BTW (i.e., essential in creating the intellectual milieu from which the American Revolution sprang. And, NO, I’m not suggesting “revolution”.)
Is there anybody organizing this? If so, they hide it rather well. Any such effort is invisible here in NJ.
Also, the question of taxpayer financed fraud (in the form of fudged data) should be looked into, with a view toward bringing suit against the offenders. That may mean having to sue the US government. If so, so be it.
I would start with Exxon Mobil, though, not the bigger fish of the US government.
Another point of attack: though climate SCIENCE shouldn’t be political, unfortunately, it’s quite political (on both sides). Some guy name Milo Yiannopoulos (http://www.breitbart.com/milo/ ) is making quite a splash on college campuses, challenging pillars of identity politics and political correctness. His sponsors seem to be, typically, college Republican clubs. I imagine they will be just as open to somebody as entertaining at Milo, but whose main topic is climate science.
Milo is quite a character, and deliberately shocking (often vulgar). I’m reluctant to endorse somebody for this task as vulgar as him, but I would definitely endorse somebody just as entertaining.

SMC
Reply to  Richard G
June 3, 2016 9:42 pm

Metamars, I don’t think you have been paying much attention.
“It’s SOP to take out leaders, first. Chicken minus head, all of that.” Yep, I agree, except, you take out the dog before you take out the lieutenant, then the RTO.
“Rather than sit back and watch this nasty drama play out (or even risk that), I say “take it to them”.” Great, what do you suggest?
“I’m a big proponent of using dead trees, and ubiquitous personal printers, for mass citizen-to-citizen pamphleting. Very American, BTW (i.e., essential in creating the intellectual milieu from which the American Revolution sprang. And, NO, I’m not suggesting “revolution”.)” …Dead trees are so passé. What do you think this blog is all about? For goodness sake, even the CAGW faithful come here and comment…and get lambasted for their idiocy. This blog is a much more effective communication/education tool than mass pamphleting.
“Also, the question of taxpayer financed fraud (in the form of fudged data) should be looked into, with a view toward bringing suit against the offenders. That may mean having to sue the US government. If so, so be it.”… The CAGW faithful are already on the ropes in court. That is why CAGW faithful try so hard to fight/delay FOI requests and use delaying tactics to prevent discovery in cases that have gone to court.
“Another point of attack: though climate SCIENCE shouldn’t be political, unfortunately, it’s quite political (on both sides).”… It has always been about politics, power and control. It has never been about the science. Science is being used as a foil to promote an agenda, socialism. Using science is argumentum ad verecundiam, a logical fallacy.

Reply to  Richard G
June 4, 2016 2:27 am

@ SMC
“…Dead trees are so passé. What do you think this blog is all about? For goodness sake, even the CAGW faithful come here and comment…and get lambasted for their idiocy. This blog is a much more effective communication/education tool than mass pamphleting.”
More effective “communication/education” tool to WHOM? I’m talking about mass education of the public. You, apparently, are impressed by the relatively puny audience that reads WUWT. Do you seriously think more than 1% of the US population reads WUWT?
I’m an anti-TPP activist, and have listened in, from time to time, to the flushthetpp call conferences, from the very beginning. To this day, there is NO effort to do any kind of polling, much less have a concrete goal for outreach and public education. Lacking same, I’ve both heard real self-delusional statements coming out of my fellow ‘activists’, whereby they revealed themselves as totally clueless about how effective they were being in terms of outreach, and heard congratulations being offered on what must surely be some of the most misguided ‘activist’ efforts, imaginable. (E.g.: http://tinyurl.com/pkrrmd3 ). One of the leaders of this movement even sent an email, suggesting that “some” of our friends and family hadn’t heard about TPP.
I, on the other hand, did my own (admittedly modest) ‘polling’, and found out that most Americans never even heard of the TPP, much less had an informed opinion on the matter. (Not surprising given the mainstream media blackout, broken only by Ed Schulz, when he was at msnbc.) I was so disgusted with the appalling failure to communicate and educate about THE most import issue on the horizon, which threatens both national sovereignty and personal democratic rights and prosperity, I created a Facebook page, called “TPP Ignorance” to document some of this ignorance.
If you want to be a big fish in a truly tiny pond, falsely imagining some great effect on the ocean, you can ‘achieve’ that dreamy state. But when they come knocking on Anthony Watts’ door, with a summons, the smallness of that pond will become all too evident, and your dream will shatter.
“The CAGW faithful are already on the ropes in court. That is why CAGW faithful try so hard to fight/delay FOI requests and use delaying tactics to prevent discovery in cases that have gone to court.” Exxon Mobil isn’t “on the ropes”, but they are part of the problem. Whatever good is coming out of legal efforts shouldn’t lull us into not pressing harder.
“It has always been about politics, power and control. It has never been about the science. Science is being used as a foil to promote an agenda, socialism. Using science is argumentum ad verecundiam, a logical fallacy.” Yeah, OK, so we agree on that. Now, why not speak to my point, viz., that a political group, college Republicans, are probably very open to getting a climate advocate analog of Milo Yianopoulos onto campuses around the country – and drawing large crowds, for and against?
==============
BTW, I’m soon to release an “opinionated” tool for activism, called “Voter’s Revenge”, where one of the opinions I’ve solidified into the user experience is attempting to bias them towards flyering as one of their pledges; in particular, when school is in session, flyering from public sidewalks adjacent to schools. The tool will be hosted at votersrevenge.com/.org. I will announce it at votersrevenge.info. The initial, signature issue that voter’s revenge will accommodate is killing TPP. See citizen.org/tpp for more info on this horror, which is reviled across the ideological spectrum.

SMC
Reply to  Richard G
June 4, 2016 6:47 am

Metamars…What’s your major?
Also, this site is about CAGW, not TPP.
As for activism, have at it, have fun, make your points salient and coherent, be safe not stupid.

Reply to  Richard G
June 4, 2016 4:40 pm

@SMC
What a bizarre post. You didn’t really address any of my points, now, did you?
FWIW, I graduated with a degree in physics and math, though I’m not a professional scientist. Having read articles at WUWT for years, I’m quite aware that this site is about climate science (and climate politics), and not about TPP. What on earth prompted you to ask such a question is beyond me.
I drew an analogy between the cluelessness of TPP ‘activists’, and the cluelessness of so-called climate change deniers, who may, if current trends continue, not be able to post what they may imagine are edgy comments on this blog. It seem like some of these commenters have no idea idea that they are fish in a tiny pond, just like some TPP ‘activists’ have no idea how little success they’ve had educating the public. Likewise, some activists are completely clueless on how to deal with their enemies.
Blowing 400 conch shells at trade negotiators, in a resort town with a population of less than 2,000, probably resulted in the target of these activists having a good laugh. The fact that the activists understand how evil the TPP is, compared to the population as a whole, doesn’t make them the least bit effective in dealing with their enemies.
If CA passes repressive legislation next month, hauls Anthony Watts into court in July, and by August you can’t post any more at WUWT because the site has been suspended, will you then still be happy to declare, “Dead trees are so passé.”?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  metamars
June 3, 2016 7:14 pm

Re metamars:
**Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Exxon Mobil scientists probably know as much about CO2’s real effects on climate as a typical (non-scientist) reader of WUWT. **
It does not take much to know about CO2’s REAL EFFECT on climate. A good lawyer would show that – There are no real effects. A consensus is not scientific fact.
A typical reader of WUWT is not really a non-scientist – you do not know.
**Assuming XOM is not so clueless as to have ignored developments in climate science**
So tell me what developments are significant? Hockey Stick? IPCC saying “very likely” as the temperatures level off??

Barbara
June 3, 2016 2:00 pm

How can the California Democratic party now be seen to back this candidate for election to the U.S. Senate?
Does the Democratic party in California have any others who are also running for a Senate seat in the primary election? Or has the primary election there already been held there?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Barbara
June 3, 2016 9:17 pm

Why wouldn’t Trump challenge Hillary on where she stands with regard to the threat implied by this grossly anti- democratic law. She can’t win on that. If she supports it, she’s antidemocratic. If she’s against it, she splits the Democrats. The Warmists are highly organized and political. Our side is playing softball. Why aren’t we more organized and robust? We are the good guys and this is a bar fight!

AndyG55
June 3, 2016 4:05 pm

From agimarc on JoNova
“It’s not dead. The legislation can be offered up as an amendment or a gut and pass (replace the contents of any bill moving thru the legislature) at the last minute and passed with little or no notice. I think this was a trial balloon to see how loud the pushback was going to be so that the democrat majority would know how devious they need to be to pass it. It is a targeted attack not only on the First Amendment, but anyone who would commit badthink. The totalitarian impulse runs strong among democrats these days and it is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. Solution may end up being dusting off the Vigilance Committees of the California Gold Rush years. “

SMC
Reply to  AndyG55
June 3, 2016 4:19 pm

Vigilance committees, huh… We’re calling them militia organizations these days. So far, they are mainly considered crackpots. They don’t have enough popular support, there is too much government surveillance and they are too spread out, disorganized and without any unified, coherent agenda to be effective. The people running them tend to be extremist and not much better than petty tyrant warlords.

AndyG55
Reply to  SMC
June 3, 2016 5:48 pm

Are you in California?
Watch your back door.. the totalitarian socialist will ream you if they can.
First California.. then the next socialist state.. ENJOY 😉

SMC
Reply to  SMC
June 3, 2016 7:07 pm

NO, thank goodness, I don’t live in California. I moved away from the state when I was 14 (well, actually, my parents moved away but whatever). I have had the misfortune of traveling there from time to time over the years for business. As for my backdoor, I have Levi’s, Hanes, Smith, Wesson and Mr. Colt helping me keep an eye out.

Niff
June 3, 2016 5:40 pm

Expect it to be reintroduced as soon as nobody is looking…..

Mjw
June 3, 2016 7:40 pm

The only reason you have the 1st Amendment is the 2nd Amendment.

SMC
Reply to  Mjw
June 3, 2016 7:44 pm

They’re in that particular order for a reason.

South River Independent
Reply to  Mjw
June 5, 2016 1:26 pm

This is why the 2nd Amendment is under continuous misrepresentation and attack by the Progressives. In addition to gun bans, they want to drive gun makers out of business with frivolous law suites and make ammunition too expensive to own by putting a heavy tax on each round. Initially, the 1st and 2nd Amendments did not apply to the states, but eventually Supreme Court decisions have made them applicable, the 2nd Amendment only recently by the McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decisions.

South River Independent
Reply to  South River Independent
June 5, 2016 1:36 pm

That should be law suits. The incorporation is accomplished via the due process provisions of the 14th Amendment. It is referred to as the incorporation doctrine. I believe this has been largely driven by the anti-states rights sentiment of the Progressives and is a case of unintended consequences, or watch out for what you wish.

Geof Barrington
June 4, 2016 10:59 am

This has passed for now . But it hasn’t gone away . The push behind global warming or what they call climate change will keep on coming .
It comes from the elites and not lightly. They don’t plan to stop anytime soon .

iurockhead
June 4, 2016 12:11 pm

Were he still alive, Lysenko would be very disappointed.

Jack Russell Terrorist
June 4, 2016 2:14 pm

Would be good if the “so called climate deniers” went to trial. That way the global warming scam would be exposed. Especially if the trials are televised. British Columbia supposedly has a business friendly govt., but were the first to put a carbon tax grab on gas and other sources of energy. With an election year coming up in 2017, no mention of raising the tax, but be assured, the tax will go up at least 5-10 cents a liter from what I’ve heard.

SMC
Reply to  Jack Russell Terrorist
June 4, 2016 3:34 pm

No, it wouldn’t. Any trials would be held in kangaroo courts. It would just be political persecution.

michel
June 5, 2016 12:04 am

This is a great pity as it would have led the way to valuable innovation in science and health. For instance, we could have banned all publications casting doubt on the saturated fat – cholesterol – heart disease theory. Then we could have banned all advocacy of the Atkins and similar diets. We would have been able to ban research or the writing of research proposals into these subjects. Then we’d have been able to ban such materials being brought into California either physically or electronically.
How much more peaceful, less controversial, and placidly plump Californians would be then.
Meanwhile in other parts of the US, the deniers who doubt creationism could be banned, and all mention of that dastardly atheistical theory evolution could be banned. Do not bring any of your blasphemous talk about fossils into our state!
Some of us were looking forward to the implementation of the Great Walls of California, Georgia, Texas and so on. We would need all these different walls because the things that are deniable in Georgia are very different from those in California. One would probably want to ban evolution, the other would want to ban creationism.
In another part of the country, some legislators can get together and stop children being confused and upset by the complicated value of pi. Obviously pi should be set by law to be 3. Or maybe 3.5. Or whatever 97% of someone decided, like, experts.
We have lost all this popcorn time. Its a great pity!

Andrew
June 5, 2016 6:20 am

Why doesn’t the DPRCa just secede? They clearly don’t want anything to do with the rest of the Union.

South River Independent
Reply to  Andrew
June 5, 2016 1:43 pm

Actually it would be a good idea to break up the country into about 5 smaller countries because of different regional interests. Failing that, we should severely limit the powers granted to the federal government. Let the states decide what is best for themselves and the people can decide where they want to live.

Gary Pearse
June 5, 2016 12:20 pm

What is the most scary about this is the name of the Bill:
“California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016”
These guys (most probably gals these days it seems) would appear to have read Orwell’s “1984” and thought it was an essay on good government.

Dennis Stayer
June 7, 2016 6:12 pm

We shouldn’t think this is done with, the withdrawal of this bill was because of political concerns over the upcoming election. The moment the election is over we will see this ugliness arise again. The AGW crowd is ultimately only concerned with their political agenda. Arguing about catastrophic climate change is merely their tool to their political ends. The truth is of no consequence to them, for the ends justify the means.

Philip Schaeffer
June 7, 2016 10:28 pm

So, can someone explain to me exactly what changes there would have been in law from this bill, apart from extending the time available to take someone to court? If that’s the only change, then how can it be responsible for killing the first amendment? How could extending the time available under the statute of limitations kill the first amendment?
Does this bill make other changes to the law that would support the allegations being made here?

Philip Schaeffer
June 8, 2016 6:47 am

Tis a shame my post seems to have disappeared. I thought it was quite pertinent.
[it didn’t disappear, its right there. caught by the WP spam filter and restored .mod]

%d bloggers like this: