California bill prosecutes climate change skeptics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Any bill with “truth” in the title obviously is not.

So, where will they house the violators? In an air-conditioned cell, of course.
 
What ever happened to freedom of speech? :confused:

California has tons of screwed up laws. It seems they make a crazy new one each day. :eek:
 
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015-2016 Regular Session
SB 1161 (Allen)
Version: March 29, 2016 Hearing Date: May 3, 2016 Fiscal: No
Urgency: No

Support: Amazon Watch; As You Sow; Asian Pacific Environmental Network; Azul; California Coastal Protection Network; California League of Conservation Voters; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Environmental Health; Center for International Environmental Law; Climate Hawks Vote; Climate Resolve; Coalition for Clean Air; Consumer Attorneys of California; Environment California; Fossil Free California; Global Exchange; Interfaith Power & Light; Media Alliance; Natural Resources Defense Council; Rainforest Action Network; Sierra Club California; Stand; Zevin Asset Management, LLC

Opposition: American Chemistry Council; American Insurance Association; Association of California Insurance Companies; California Business Roundtable; California Business Properties Association; California Building Industry Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California Independent Oil Marketers Association; California Independent Petroleum Association; California Manufacturers and Technology Association; California Retailers Association; Civil Justice Association of California; National Federation of Independent Business; Valley Industry and Commerce Association
 
Once the gummint starts defining “scientific truth,” the door would seem open to prosecuting those who, for example, don’t believe in evolution, or that human life begins at conception, or a host of other things that are contrary to the current political narrative.
 
I suggest we make it illegal to deceive and mislead the public regarding political campaigns.
 
Melodeonist said:
What ever happened to freedom of speech? :confused:

California has tons of screwed up laws. It seems they make a crazy new one each day. :eek:
Click to expand...
Free Speech Must Apply To Climate Change Debate

. . .

Albert Einstein once said, “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” It might be humorous to the gods, but when eco-activists succeed in convincing elected officials to try to criminalize free speech and open scientific enquiry, everyone—left, right and center—must object vigorously.

Totalitarianism, not freedom, dominated most of human history. It will dominate our future too if we let eco-extremists have their way.

Read more: dailycaller.com/2016/06/03/free-speech-must-apply-to-climate-change-debate/#ixzz4AYoLyTk3
 
On one hand, I’m not sure why people deny climate change. The vast majority of science seems to back up, that yes, the world is getting warmer so that really shouldn’t be up for debate. Instead, we should be asking whether or not we’re responsible or its a natural occurrence and what, if anything, should be done to try to fix it.

On the other, and more importantly, is that free speech should never be limited. Even if people want to say something stupid, they should be allowed.
 
7_Sorrows said:
tyranny!
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.

Its really amazing when they start creating laws against thinking or believing in something specific…and really this should result in mobs of people storming into DC to stop it, but Im betting most people will complain for a little while but then sit back and accept it/ deal with it/ give in/ settle, etc whatever you want to call it. LOL

This kind of thing will progress and I truly believe eventually Christianity itself will be a crime in the US, they are just laying the groundwork for the future.
 
mikekle said:
I agree 100%.

Its really amazing when they start creating laws against thinking or believing in something specific…and really this should result in mobs of people storming into DC to stop it, but Im betting most people will complain for a little while but then sit back and accept it/ deal with it/ give in/ settle, etc whatever you want to call it. LOL

This kind of thing will progress and I truly believe eventually Christianity itself will be a crime in the US, they are just laying the groundwork for the future.
Click to expand...
I said it before and I’ll say it again…

Make friends with anarchists and whistleblowers and even Islamic fundamentalists, since if we ever live in a state where Christianity is illegal, you’ll be sharing cells with them.
 
xNoOnex said:
On one hand, I’m not sure why people deny climate change. The vast majority of science seems to back up, that yes, the world is getting warmer so that really shouldn’t be up for debate. Instead, we should be asking whether or not we’re responsible or its a natural occurrence and what, if anything, should be done to try to fix it.

On the other, and more importantly, is that free speech should never be limited. Even if people want to say something stupid, they should be allowed.
Click to expand...
Most the people put in the “denyer” category are not denying that the climate is changing, but that it’s because of us and there’s anything we can do to control it.
 
This ill-conceived law has been abandoned. Yet it was not as represented here. Read the whole article. The law** was not **written to apply to individuals speaking their minds. It was written specifically for corporations or organizations that use climate change skepticism for their own self-interests. It is like the tobacco companies having “research” that offers the opinion that smoking is not dangerous. That is not free speech. That is organizations fraudulently presenting research that benefits the organization.
 
Darn it, Leaf. Now you ruined the opportunity for all that righteous anger.
 
Just to be clear, the bill was an attack on false advertising, not free speech. Yes, it was a terrible bill, as it allowed DA’s to go back and squeeze money from companies for actions committed before the bill was enacted.

I note in the article that four prosecutor are already investigating Exxon for fraud. Maybe Ken Paxton could return the favor, level the playing field, and investigate environmentalists and universities for fraud.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It was written specifically for corporations or organizations that use climate change skepticism for their own self-interests. It is like the tobacco companies having “research” that offers the opinion that smoking is not dangerous. That is not free speech. That is organizations fraudulently presenting research that benefits the organization.
Click to expand...
Well, this kind of thing happens all the time, ever notice how many studies tend to agree with or back up whatever the requester happens to be looking into doing, whether it be creation of new laws, regulations, guidelines, etc

Example, if the Dept of Justice or other law enforcement agency funds a study to see if something is potentially dangerous or there is cause for concern, in the creation of new law or regulation, and it is something most of them want to happen…99.9% of the time, the study is going to back them up.

Heck I remember when our state (KY) was looking to ban smoking in public, many local cities and leaders were opposed as most businesses did not want the new law, so they funded a study about the real dangers of second hand smoke, you may not believe it, but the study actually came out saying secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as touted.

Now, if majority of business owners had been in favor of banning public smoking, I tend to think the study would have resulted in much different conclusions, or they would have found a study group that WILL agree.

Its really about what the popular sentiment at the time is and what the goal is
 
mikekle said:
Well, this kind of thing happens all the time, ever notice how many studies tend to agree with or back up whatever the requester happens to be looking into doing, whether it be creation of new laws, regulations, guidelines, etc

Example, if the Dept of Justice or other law enforcement agency funds a study to see if something is potentially dangerous or there is cause for concern, in the creation of new law or regulation, and it is something most of them want to happen…99.9% of the time, the study is going to back them up.

Heck I remember when our state (KY) was looking to ban smoking in public, many local cities and leaders were opposed as most businesses did not want the new law, so they funded a study about the real dangers of second hand smoke, you may not believe it, but the study actually came out saying secondhand smoke is not as dangerous as touted.

Now, if majority of business owners had been in favor of banning public smoking, I tend to think the study would have resulted in much different conclusions, or they would have found a study group that WILL agree.

Its really about what the popular sentiment at the time is and what the goal is
Click to expand...
The fact that it “happens all the time” does not mean it** should** happen all the time. False advertising is still wrong.
 
mikekle said:
Example, if the Dept of Justice or other law enforcement agency funds a study to see if something is potentially dangerous or there is cause for concern, in the creation of new law or regulation, and it is something most of them want to happen…99.9% of the time, the study is going to back them up.
Click to expand...
Is this an actual statistic you have gathered? Or is it a wild guess? Or wishful thinking?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Is this an actual statistic you have gathered? Or is it a wild guess? Or wishful thinking?
Click to expand...
When was the last time you heard about some law or regulation the DOJ or law enforcement were pushing for, but the official studies did not back up/ justify their opinions, concerns, beliefs,etc ?

I cant recall this ever happening.

So they are either experts in just about anything and everything, OR, they simply find someone who will produce a study that agrees with their position, my bet is on the latter.
 
mikekle said:
When was the last time you heard about some law or regulation the DOJ or law enforcement were pushing for, but the official studies did not back up/ justify their opinions, concerns, beliefs,etc ?

I cant recall this ever happening.
Click to expand...
How often do you hear about official studies before are conducted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top