California Dem Proposes Law Targeting Global Warming Skeptics

exxonA California lawmaker wants to change a law to make it easier for state prosecutors to go after companies skeptical of global warming. The proposed bill would punish skeptical companies for “many years of public deception” with regards to global warming science.

“I want to give law enforcement the tools they need to hold people accountable for their actions if that’s where the evidence takes them,” Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, who proposed legislation targeting skeptics, recently told InsideClimate News.

Allen’s proposed legislation would extend the statute of limitations under California’s Unfair Competition Law from four to 30 years specifically for “behavior related to scientific evidence of climate change,” according to a summary of the bill. Allen’s proposal comes as state prosecutors pledged to investigate Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about global warming.

“Given the environmental, health, and economic impacts that Californians are already paying for as a result of the fossil fuel industry’s many years of public deception and their efforts to block action on climate change, it is important to hold the industry responsible,” Allen’s office wrote in the bill’s summary.

The legislation is part of a larger effort by Democrats and environmentalists to draw parallels between oil companies and the tobacco industry as state attorneys general investigate Exxon’s disclosures about global warming’s risks to shareholders.

California’s attorney general is already investigating Exxon for allegedly misleading shareholders about the risks the company faces from global warming. New York, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands have also launched investigations into Exxon’s global warming stance.

“Keeping the statute limited to only four years undermines the state’s ability to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for their unfair and deceptive practices that extend back well beyond four years, as well as the damages and risks that Californians and everyone else must face for centuries to come,” according to Allen’s office.

AG investigations into Exxon, and Allen’s bill, were inspired by reports from InsideClimate News and Columbia University claiming the company knew of the risks of global warming for decades, but funded groups skeptical of warming and opposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Read rest…

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (30)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Okay. I’ll play along…

    If this kind of hyperbole is now acceptable then why are these politically motivated prosecutors and politicians not compared to their soul mates: Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler?

    Sure, it’s not fair, but isn’t that the point?

    I can just hear the liberals… “How dare you compare these (liberals) to those who have wrongly accused with propaganda and then terribly harmed large groups of people for their own gain!…”

    Irony bites.

  • Avatar

    GESchroeder

    |

    Depending on how this law is written, it can be a very good thing. The global warming fraudsters could be charged under their own law for their “many years of public deception with regards to global warming science.”

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    GESchroeder Good point . I think they know it too and that is why we are seeing the latest propaganda to deflect attention away from themselves . Getting some scary global warming believers on side like AG’s makes it less likely they will turn their attention on the puppet masters of one of the biggest scams in history . Demonize the dirty fuel users , those greedy corporations , those deniers and bully scientists who won’t drink the cool aid . It is all becoming an all to familiar pattern .

    The jig is up on the crisis that wasn’t and the proof is the lawyers have entered the room .

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”GESchroeder”]Depending on how this law is written, it can be a very good thing. The global warming fraudsters could be charged under their own law for their “many years of public deception with regards to global warming science.”[/quote]
    That’s a nice dream, but you’re making a big assumption… that is even if this law [u]is[/u] written “properly” that it would be then [b]enforced[/b] and [b]adjudicated[/b] fairly.

    If we’ve learned anything lately it’s that the left views the judiciary as a tool for what they cannot achieve through otherwise legitimate means. We [u]assume[/u] the Constitution will be honored and that judges will interpret law justly rather than inventing it outright.

    Assume at your own risk.

  • Avatar

    Windy 2

    |

    I read the Exxon study for myself and it pretty much mirrored the uncertainty and non-consensus of the science community at the time it was written. Activists are trying to suggest that Exxon was guilty of the same misinformation campaign as the tobacco industry but such a narrative is misleading. There was a large number of independent climate researchers who did not find CO2 to be a climate threat unlike the independent science community that studied tobacco health threats. There was NO CONSENSUS on the dangers of CO2 at the time as many scientists in the 1970s were predicting a cooling. While Exxon acknowledged that CO2 caused warming there was no consensus on the dangers and no clear consensus to recommend to the BOD at the time.

    I’m not sure the AGs will prevail in the face of actual evidence taken from the scientific reports generated by Exxon scientists at the time. There is no smoking gun with regard to Exxon falsifying the science. The uncertainties were still very high and interpretation difficult. Determining guilt using hindsight that is 20/20 is not the same as determining guilt based on non-consensus scientific knowledge 30 years ago.

  • Avatar

    Windy 2

    |

    The Yale Climate Project took a very strong stance against using intimidation and fear tactics in climate communication to the public. Yale found though several studies that such efforts would likely backfire and damage efforts to gain public support for climate action. While politicians and AGs see the potential in pursuing the a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, the public perception may be an entirely different matter that could hit them in the pocketbook and create a potential backlash against the government. The idea of prosecuting “deniers” is is a very risky move and one that may not play out as intended.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Windy 2″] Determining guilt using hindsight that is 20/20 is not the same as determining guilt based on non-consensus scientific knowledge 30 years ago.[/quote]Windy, I mostly agree with your take but I still don’t accept the central premise that science itself can be based on consensus. The late Dr.Michael Chrichton summed this up quite nicely:

    [i]“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Tend to agree with Windy 2 as well . Getting the promoters of the scary global warming propaganda in court is long overdue .

  • Avatar

    196toZero

    |

    Hi Sceptics,
    I am baaaaaaaack. Just more heat records to warm your hearts. I expect One Trick to be by shortly with a graph of US continental temps to dispute GLOBAL records and JayPee to tell us again about how the moon’s albedo is responsible for its temperature (snicker).

    “The global average temperature anomaly was 1.35ºC above the 1951–80 average and 1.21ºC above the entire twentieth-century average. For temperatures over land, the deviation almost doubles to a whopping 2.31ºC above the twentieth-century average. Other records broken by February 2016 include the fact that it was the tenth consecutive month in which the global average monthly record was broken and that it completed the hottest three-month period on record (December 2015 to February 2016).”

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @196

    YOU ARE A LIAR

    All anyone has to do is read your most recent previous posts and the response to it and compare to what you just said.

    YOU ARE A LIAR

    DRuuuuuuuSKI

  • Avatar

    196toZero

    |

    Yes, yes JayPee,
    I lie with references and citations and you tell the truth with what exactly?

    Still waiting for a shred of proof about this no greenhouse gas theory of yours (double snicker). BTW, have you noticed Roy Spencer had to close down the comments on his blog because of another no-greenhouse gas lunatic, Doug Cotten, continually fouled the place up?

    Like I said before, sCeptics are living in an ever-decreasing bubble.

    POP!

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrzejeweski

    It is not my fault that you do not know and are incapable of conceptualizing what I have already said in response to your whatever supposed value comments.

    I’ll leave to others to evaluate your comments and the responses to them by everyone here.

    I don’t expect you to realize what an *ss and fool you’ve made of yourself, but keep commenting. I know you think it’s important.

    I’ll keep laughing. And I don’t think I’m alone.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Thanks 196to zero for informing us it is getting warmer . And your point ? Let’s hope it continues . When the trend reverses as it historically has plants, animals and sea creatures will have a much more difficult time . Humans will adapt and evolve as we always have .
    A warming world means less fossil fuel use ,greater plant growth and more ocean for fish . Do you have a problem with that ?
    Perhaps you believe there are just too many humans and a warming world isn’t good because it likely means even more humans . Considering Antarctica is larger than the entire USA with a full time population of about 5000 people
    it serves as a real example of peoples preferences . Polar Bears don’t even want to live there.

    Natural variables continue to shape climate change and while everything humans do has some impact we don’t drive the bus. We are especially not going to tweak the earth’s temperature to our liking. The arbitrary 2 degree limit is utter
    nonsense .
    We need to focus on reducing energy use of all kinds , clean up our oceans and waterways , and protect the other species of plants and animals . But we also need to move past the alarmism and ulterior motives of promoters of the pretend global warming crisis . It is an overblown scam .

  • Avatar

    ralph

    |

    Amazing how some people totally ignore the current El Nino and continue to spout out how bad things are as the Earth gets hotter.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    After much bluster about how the sky is falling and how “the earth has a fever” the climate activists usually get around to what they really want:

    – Dismantlement of free market economies
    – Forced redistribution of world wealth (AKA carbon credit schemes
    – Subordination and/or dismantlement of Constitutional rights
    – Establishment of a neo-socialist one-world government and central planning system

    …None of which has anything to do with the so-called [u]scientific[/u] opinions they have grant-purchased using trillions of taxpayer dollars.

    So Drewski, let’s just cut to the chase. Let’s have a little honesty instead of hiding behind the false premise of “consensus science”, and compare and contrast your Utopian Socialist Paradise (and the history of world Socialism) verses free market Constitutionalism.

  • Avatar

    196-to-0

    |

    Ralph,
    We have had El Nino’s before but now the baseline keeps rising thus records get broken.

    GR82DRV,
    “Consensus science” is arrived at by evidence convincing a majority (in climate science that would be a VAST majority) of scientists that the OBSERVATIONS and TRENDS we are witnessing point to a reality which should humanity should not ignore.

    And “cutting to the chase”, bringing “my” Utopian Socialist Paradise and free market Constitutionalism into the conversation is just goofy nonsense.

  • Avatar

    196-to-0

    |

    Should not have said should twice, shouldn’t I?

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”196-to-0″]Ralph,
    We have had El Nino’s before but now the baseline keeps rising thus records get broken.

    GR82DRV,
    “Consensus science” is arrived at by evidence convincing a majority (in climate science that would be a VAST majority) of scientists that the OBSERVATIONS and TRENDS we are witnessing point to a reality which should humanity should not ignore.
    [/quote]Sorry, [b]that’s[/b] not science.

    [b]It isn’t science[/b] if it’s declared settled rather than being open to question or new data.
    [b]It isn’t science[/b] when government funds only [u]one[/u] side of the debate.
    [b]It isn’t science[/b] when emails circulate among climate science discussing how to “hide the decline” in temperature, as happened in the 2009 Climategate scandal at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
    [b]It isn’t science[/b] when progressive politicians want to strip academics of their teaching positions because they question the validity of or hold opposing views on climate change.
    [b]It isn’t science[/b] when Al Gore and his gang of political zealots want to deny the First Amendment rights of free speech to skeptics in industry by threatening punishment for voicing alternative opinions.
    [b]It isn’t science[/b] when the climate change orthodoxy calls reasonable people who reject the climate change catastrophe scenario “climate change deniers”, trying to invoke the same disgust deserved by Holocaust deniers.
    [b]It isn’t science[/b] if their hypothesis is [u]non-falsifiable[/u] – that is, if the hypothesis is never rejected, but constantly modified in an attempt to accommodate the data.

    Congratulations. This is what your politically motivated fellow travelers have done to advance the cause of science…

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    :zzz “For all those Zero’s that want to claim 2015/2016 “proves” that human caused global warming is at work (while at the same time ignoring a record El Niño event as seen above), this graph indisputably proves that the El Niño is the driver of record high temperatures, not carbon dioxide.”
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/el-nino-12-14-15-current.gif[/img]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/15/one-graph-proves-that-record-high-year-of-2015-and-record-months-of-2016-are-not-agw-driven/

  • Avatar

    196-to-0

    |

    One Trick,
    No one has ignored the current El Nino but sCeptics like to ignore the rising baseline temps that precede these El Nino’s . Have you asked yourself why this El Nino has temps so much higher than 97/98 or why that one was hotter than the one before? Of course not, that would require logical thinking.

    BTW, I am part of the 196. Zero represents the number of countries that rejected the latest international climate agreement and also represents the number of scientific papers JayPee has to support his no greenhouse gas argument.

    GR82DRV,
    It isn’t science if it’s declared settled rather than being open to question or new data.
    >What new data?

    It isn’t science when government funds only one side of the debate.
    >There are no “sides” to science, only evidence – got any?

    It isn’t science when emails circulate among climate science discussing how to “hide the decline” in temperature, as happened in the 2009 Climategate scandal at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
    >OMG! They should have an investigation! Oh, that’s right they did and multiple times at that. Result? No scientific malfeasance.

    It isn’t science when progressive politicians want to strip academics of their teaching positions because they question the validity of or hold opposing views on climate change.
    >Again – evidence?

    It isn’t science when Al Gore and his gang of political zealots want to deny the First Amendment rights of free speech to skeptics in industry by threatening punishment for voicing alternative opinions.
    >You make me ask again – where is your evidence?

    It isn’t science when the climate change orthodoxy calls reasonable people who reject the climate change catastrophe scenario “climate change deniers”, trying to invoke the same disgust deserved by Holocaust deniers.
    >If the shoe fits. . . . . .

    It isn’t science if their hypothesis is non-falsifiable – that is, if the hypothesis is never rejected, but constantly modified in an attempt to accommodate the data.
    >Global warming theory is the same as it ever was, new data has only bolstered the theory as evidenced by the recent 196-to-Zero result of COP21.

    Congratulations. This is what your politically motivated fellow travelers have done to advance the cause of science…
    >Yet more illogical sCeptic ramblings.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Drew. arguing with you is like arguing with a 5-year old… Absolutely juvenile.

    You constantly ask for “evidence” that is right before your nose and being repeated over and over, yet all you can come up with is, “So where’s your evidence”.

    Evidence is critical for someone making an [u]intellectual[/u] argument. Evidence is irrelevant for someone trying to perpetrate a political fraud.

    As a person who makes his living in the natural sciences (medicine), evidence and respect for the scientific process, [u]including skeptical review[/u] is sacred. Endorsement of tyrants like Al Gore and other leftist fraudsters who seek to deny free speech is shameful. But as you so clearly prove, leftist political idealism trumps shame.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    gr82drv

    The dopes like Andrzejeweski
    demand proof that their unproven conjecture is incorrect when they have no proof that is correct

    therefore they win the day because you can’t prove that that their unproven irresponsible nonsense is incorrect

    talk to any lawyer Which drewski has previously claimed to be

    It is nearly impossible to prove a negative therefor
    the jerks claiming a positive must be put to their proof

    But watch idiot drewski try to turn this around if he actually is a lawyer ( liar )

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    GR82DRV
    “Drew. arguing with you is like arguing with a 5-year old… Absolutely juvenile.”

    You write this AFTER you posted the following:

    “After much bluster about how the sky is falling and how “the earth has a fever” the climate activists usually get around to what they really want:

    – Dismantlement of free market economies
    – Forced redistribution of world wealth (AKA carbon credit schemes
    – Subordination and/or dismantlement of Constitutional rights
    – Establishment of a neo-socialist one-world government and central planning system”

    You need a tin helmet to fit over your tin hat.

    You also write this:
    “Evidence is critical for someone making an intellectual argument. Evidence is irrelevant for someone trying to perpetrate a political fraud.”

    Just within the past week I posted (but since removed by CCD) NUMEROUS studies attesting to both the validity and quantity of scientific evidence in support of man-made climate change.

    What VALID evidence have you posted to the contrary?

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    IDIOT ANDREWJEWSKI

    What scientific proof do you have that there is such a thing as your mythical and self presumed

    GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    I don’t expect you to understand the notion of

    SCIENTIFIC PROOF !

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    No , your turn jerk
    None of that is scientific proof, it is mere unfounded opinion,

    But , of course, how would you understand ?
    I astounded that you keep wanting to respond.

    Keep coming back
    Keep getting beaten up

    It’s the recognition of your existence that you need
    no matter how negative ?

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    Jay Pee,
    Not proof? You can say that because you read all those studies in 5 minutes?!?

    And you me a liar.
    LOL

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    You are nothing and you always have been nothing.
    You can try to make yourself a something’
    I don’t know who would believe it.

    You have made your own world and you can live in it.
    I will not join your idiocy.

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    Yes yes JayPee,
    I am a nothing.
    But I do have something.

    It is called EVIDENCE. And I have decades of it in the form of studies, observations, links and citations. PLUS, I have position papers from ALL of the world’s earth, space and atmospheric science organizations and ALL of the world’s peak national science organizations and ALL of America’s military and intelligence agencies.

    I know it doesn’t compare to the intellectual heights of the expert gamblers, neck doctors and fake lawyers that write for CCD but it sustains me.

    BTW, do you ever plan to post any EVIDENCE in support of your no-greenhouse gas theory (chuckle)?

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.