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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can we have a list of the anti-democratic fascist who voted for this Bill?
Then we would know who to vote out.
It never made it to vote, it stalled in committee
It was passed in committee, so there must have been committee members who voted for it.
“Ordered to inactive file on request of Senator Monning.”
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1161
I read that it had been passed by two sub-committees. (not committees as I mistakenly noted above)
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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….
“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”?
A shareholder lawsuit is a “more muscular way”. There’s not even a hint of “armed insurrection, rebellion, revolution” in my post…..
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.
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.
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.
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’??
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
@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.”?
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??
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?
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!
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. “
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.
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 😉
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.
Expect it to be reintroduced as soon as nobody is looking…..
The only reason you have the 1st Amendment is the 2nd Amendment.
They’re in that particular order for a reason.
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.
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.
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 .
Were he still alive, Lysenko would be very disappointed.
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.
No, it wouldn’t. Any trials would be held in kangaroo courts. It would just be political persecution.
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!
Why doesn’t the DPRCa just secede? They clearly don’t want anything to do with the rest of the Union.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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]