Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

[klnOmega]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/?

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

...
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.

“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.

Welcome to the new age. Businesses and organizations that "engage in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future of anthropogenic induced climate change" will be allowed to be sued by the state.

Regardless what you think of climate change, I'd hope anyone can see how dangerous, and ironically unscientific, this is.

 

[Awesomesauce]

I understand what they are trying to do but this is a terrible way of going about it. Why are lawmakers so fucking incompetent?

 

[KILL KILL]

I think this should only apply under certain conditions such as a scientist knowingly misinterpreting information for gain.

Otherwise, this is a pretty scary law.

 

[Falsedawn]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/?




Welcome to the new age. Businesses and organizations that "engage in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future of anthropogenic induced climate change" will be allowed to be sued by the state.

Regardless what you think of climate change, I'd hope anyone can see how dangerous, and ironically unscientific, this is.

So when Tobacco companies were funding sham scientific studies despite knowing full well that cigarettes are carcinogenic, that's cool to you?

 

[klnOmega]

So when Tobacco companies were funding sham scientific studies despite knowing full well that cigarettes are carcinogenic, that's cool to you?

Yes. The truth doesn't need protection. This is science we are talking about.

 

[Livermore]

I understand what they are trying to do but this is a terrible way of going about it. Why are lawmakers so fucking incompetent?

Because the system they work in incentivizes them to be.

 

[Falsedawn]

Yes. The truth doesn't need protection. This is science we are talking about.

Let me reword that.

So when Tobacco companies misrepresented their killer product, hid behind self funded scientific studies that were patently false, and continued to misrepresent their product despite knowing the truth, that's cool to you?

 

[TheStruggle]

This is liberals getting exactly what they want and this is only the beginning. Free Speech and Gun rights are next, keep telling yourself it isn't happening.

 

[klnOmega]

Let me reword that.

So when Tobacco companies misrepresented their killer product, hid behind self funded scientific studies that were patently false, and continued to misrepresent their product despite knowing the truth, that's cool to you?

If you disagree with their conclusions, you are free to conduct and publish your own counter study.

People like you would allow the Tobacco companies to simply lobby Congress to make it illegal to question their sham studies showing tobacco is harmless.

 

[Falsedawn]

If you disagree with their conclusions, you are free to conduct and publish your own counter study.

People like you would allow the Tobacco companies to simply lobby Congress to make it illegal to question their sham studies showing tobacco is harmless.

You really shouldn't be rallying against government tyranny, you've just admitted to openly accepting tyranny of capital.

You have the money, it doesn't matter if you lie, obfuscate studies, peddle products that kill people, it's their fault for believing you and not yours for lying to them and selling them carcinogens.

You're not arguing to "protect science", you just fucked that train of thought up.

 

[klnOmega]

You really shouldn't be rallying against government tyranny, you've just admitted to openly accepting tyranny of capital.

I'm not sure saying "I believe scientists and others should be free to conduct and publish studies which oppose claims made by Tobacco products about the safety of their products" is "accepting tyranny of capital". You are kinda stretching, kiddo.

You have the money, it doesn't matter if you lie, obfuscate studies, peddle products that kill people, it's their fault for believing you and not yours for lying to them and selling them carcinogens.

You're not arguing to "protect science", you just fucked that train of thought up.

Not sure what money has to do with any of this. I believe everyone should be able to publish their findings, and I believe everyone should be able to challenge the findings of others. Never mentioned money once.

 

[n...not crazy]

I have to say... I don't really care about California anymore. They've lost their marbles.

 

[Falsedawn]

I'm not sure saying "I believe scientists and others should be free to conduct and publish studies which oppose claims made by Tobacco products about the safety of their products" is "accepting tyranny of capital". You are kinda stretching, kiddo.

Hi Kepler, you read your article?

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

If I sell you a car, tell you it's great, and it's a piece of shit, we call that fraud. If I tell you my product is harmless and I know that's a lie, we call that fraud. So how is this any different? There's overwhelming evidence for climate change, literally overwhelming evidence. You're condoning a minority of "skeptics" bought and paid for by institutions that benefit from there "being nothing in sight", to subvert the very core of scientific consensus on the matter and you are somehow defending the scientific process?

Is this real life? You're condoning literal fraud.

 

[method115]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/calif-bill-prosecutes-climate-change-skeptics/?




Welcome to the new age. Businesses and organizations that "engage in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future of anthropogenic induced climate change" will be allowed to be sued by the state.

Regardless what you think of climate change, I'd hope anyone can see how dangerous, and ironically unscientific, this is.

I agree. In a way though I can kind of understand a bill like this. Big companies like this will go out of their way to lie and mislead people when they know they are pirposely hurting the environment/people/animals, etc. I was listening to Rogans podcast and they were talking about how companies hire people who purposely put out false information so that it makes it looks like theres some sort of debate about an issue when there really isn't. I think the tobacco company did this and I do think we should find a solution for it. What that solution is I don't know but I do know that this bill isn't the solution.

 

[klnOmega]

Hi Kepler, you read your article?

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

If I sell you a car, tell you it's great, and it's a piece of shit, we call that fraud. If I tell you my product is harmless and I know that's a lie, we call that fraud. So how is this any different? There's overwhelming evidence for climate change, literally overwhelming evidence. You're condoning a minority of "skeptics" bought and paid for by institutions that benefit from there "being nothing in sight", to subvert the very core of scientific consensus on the matter and you are somehow defending the scientific process?

Is this real life? You're condoning literal fraud.

Actually, you've sold me a car and told me it is great, then signed a law that made it illegal for me to question whether it is actually great or not. You are sueing me for leaving a bad review on your car.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I think this should only apply under certain conditions such as a scientist knowingly misinterpreting information for gain.

Otherwise, this is a pretty scary law.

Yup, same here...

when scientists are on the take, or have clear agendas and are bankrolled to "juke the stats"...that should be illegal.

the Sugar industry, Oil industry and tobacco companies are notorious for this.

 

[ndwolfwood]

Listen if rich people can't fuck us then what's the point of being rich?

 

[Falsedawn]

Actually, you've sold me a car and told me it is great, then signed a law that made it illegal for me to question whether it is actually great or not. You are sueing me for leaving a bad review on your car.

This is quite literally the worst analogy in existence.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to get past the fact that you're advocating on behalf of fraud I guess.

 

[Awesomesauce]

I'm not sure saying "I believe scientists and others should be free to conduct and publish studies which oppose claims made by Tobacco products about the safety of their products" is "accepting tyranny of capital". You are kinda stretching, kiddo.



Not sure what money has to do with any of this. I believe everyone should be able to publish their findings, and I believe everyone should be able to challenge the findings of others. Never mentioned money once.

Your position is fundamentally absurd. No other profession has zero responsibility for the veracity of their work - well, maybe politicians. Why should those that profess to represent the unbiased truth be less accountable for there work then an accountant, a lawyer, or an engineer?

If it is abundantly clear that a scientist misrepresents their data, then at the very least massive fines, and preferably prison time. There is nothing inconsistent or unreasonable about that.

Even though I consider climate science largely settled, picking a particular issue like this and making it the focus of a bill like this is a terrible idea because there is always that small chance that we are all wrong about climate science for some unknown reason even if in principle it all but assured.

However, any individual who creates and misrepresents data for the purposes of pushing a dishonest or distorted picture of an issue (of which climate change is rife) they deserve public sanctions as much as anyone alive because the damage they do is potentially tremendous.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I think this should only apply under certain conditions such as a scientist knowingly misinterpreting information for gain.

Including Pro-Climate-Change scientists?

Nah, it'd be a one-way-street, like with hate crimes.