posted June 28, 2016 12:32 PM            

The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.

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.

While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.

Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a “totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”

“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” asked Mr. Frank in a May 31 post.

“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161,” Mr. Frank said.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris belongs to a coalition of 17 state attorneys general that joined forces in March to pursue climate-change skeptics, starting with ExxonMobil.

posted June 29, 2016 09:46 PM            

Don't we just love our little brain dead leftist lunatic Global Warming fraudsters?

June 29, 2016

Warmist guru Michael Mann tells DNC platform committee to use scary propaganda, not science, to panic voters into accepting flawed theory

By Thomas Lifson

It is a sure sign of warmist desperation in the wake of the abject failure of global warming climate models to accurately predict the future. Michael Mann, one of the leading touts of warmism, yesterday told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee:

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.
“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle....”

Please allow me to translate: The best tool we have to scare people into supporting carbon taxes and regulations that would empower the ruling elites to control every aspect of wealth generation is propaganda pretending that bad weather, like hurricanes and floods are caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, and essential atmospheric ingredient that promotes higher crop yields necessary to feed the earth’s burgeoning population. Most people do not realize that catastrophic weather events have been apart of human history forever, so we can fool them into believing that we can prevent them in the future by limiting the combustion of hydrocarbons.

Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times notes:

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post. (snip)

Skeptics have hotly challenged the link between rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and “extreme weather” events, noting, for example, that hurricane activity is on the decline.

A nine-year “hurricane drought” of Category 3 storms starting in 2006 beat the previous mark of eight years from 1861-1868, the longest such streak since such recording began in 1851, according to a May 2015 study by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

But the Democrats, the party of statist control over the economy, are a natural audience for arguments that suggest the use of panic propaganda, not data, to make the case for more government control.

It is a sure sign of warmist desperation in the wake of the abject failure of global warming climate models to accurately predict the future. Michael Mann, one of the leading touts of warmism, yesterday told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee:

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.
“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle....”

Please allow me to translate: The best tool we have to scare people into supporting carbon taxes and regulations that would empower the ruling elites to control every aspect of wealth generation is propaganda pretending that bad weather, like hurricanes and floods are caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, and essential atmospheric ingredient that promotes higher crop yields necessary to feed the earth’s burgeoning population. Most people do not realize that catastrophic weather events have been apart of human history forever, so we can fool them into believing that we can prevent them in the future by limiting the combustion of hydrocarbons.

Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times notes:

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post. (snip)

Skeptics have hotly challenged the link between rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and “extreme weather” events, noting, for example, that hurricane activity is on the decline.

A nine-year “hurricane drought” of Category 3 storms starting in 2006 beat the previous mark of eight years from 1861-1868, the longest such streak since such recording began in 1851, according to a May 2015 study by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

posted July 02, 2016 08:05 AM            

July 2, 2016
Warmist stronghold all but concedes the game
Thomas Lifson

Life’s tough for a warmist think-tank. Look what just happened in Germany (via the great Andrew Bolt):

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) are warning that Europe may be facing “a mini ice age” due to a possible protracted solar minimum.

The news comes from the Berliner Kurier, which adds:

That’s the conclusion that solar physicists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research reached when looking at solar activity. For an institute that over the past 20 years has steadfastly insisted that man has been almost the sole factor in climate change over the past century and that the sun no longer plays a role, this is quite remarkable.

The Berliner Kurier reports that the PIK scientists foresee a weakening of the sun’s activity over the coming years. That means that conversely it is going to get colder. The scientists are speaking of a little ice age.

According to the PIK scientists, the reduced solar activity will, however, not be able to stop the global warming and only brake the warming up to 2100 by 0.3°C.

This warmist hotbed is admitting that solar activity drives climate so strongly that, even sticking to their models as accurate forecasts, they see only a 0.3-degree change by the next century. As Andrew Bolt prompts us: