JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Defcon1 Legal Threat: California’s near miss on new laws to jail climate skeptics

Here’s how a democracy becomes a technocracy: when the legislation decrees a government department edit is “truth” and threatens to jail anyone who disagrees. For a whole 3 months California’s Senate didn’t treat this bill like the democratic-leprosy that it is. Today it’s just been “moved to inactive” which means it is out of action for the moment — immediate threat over — but the fact that it was proposed and passed several Senate committee stages in California should rattle the bones of every freeman. A tyranny beckons.

There are already laws that stop people from profiting from lies and deception. They apply to everyone. Why do they need climate skeptic specific laws? Because the skeptics speak the truth.

This is nuclear stuff:

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

So close. Washington Post:

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

The measure, which cleared two Senate committees, provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until Jan. 1 on charges of climate change “fraud” extending back indefinitely.

Legislate scientific laws? (Make govt departments untouchable.)

Rather than being a law that applies to one and all, the bill starts by defining their “truths”, entrenching falsehoods, and an immature corrupted scientific field into legislation — hard to believe. If a government department was — banish the thought — wrong about something, this type of legislation would jail people for saying so — all hail the US EPA?

SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.

(2) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) states that the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases results in impacts that include the following:

(A) Changing temperature and precipitation patterns.

(B) Increases in ocean temperatures, sea level, and acidity.

(C) Melting of glaciers and sea ice.

(D) Changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events.

(E) Shifts in ecosystem characteristics, such as the length of the growing season, timing of flower blooms, and migration of birds.

(F) Increased threats to human health.

So “the legislature” firstly declares there is a broad scientific consensus, despite there being not one single study or even so much as an anonymous internet poll that demonstrates that. There is not even a consensus among climate scientists.  Two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics, aren’t they scientists? Oh-yessity, and their branch is the kind that doesn’t need a consensus. When was the last time a state legislated that Dept of Transport declares there is Conservation of Momentum? There is a good reason we don’t make laws about more complex phenomena — otherwise we’d have jailed people for saying that continents drift, eggs are healthy, and crash diets might stop diabetes.

The legislation has a few other little bombs — like retrospectively removing the statute of limitations:

Walter Olson

An extraordinary bill in the California legislature, promoted as making it easier to sue fossil fuel companies over their involvements in public debate, would lift the four-year statute of limitations of the state’s already extremely liberal Unfair Competition Law, otherwise known as s. 17200 — and retrospectively, so as to revive decades’ worth of time-lapsed claims “with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced anthropogenic-induced climate change.” Despite a 2004 round of voter-sponsored reform which curbed some of its worst applications, s. 17200 still enables what a California court called “legal shakedown” operations in which “ridiculously minor” violations serve as the predicate for automatic entitlement to damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.

If skeptics were profiting from lies, they would already be in jail.

h/t Lubos, Anthony Watts, Joffa, Climate Depot

WUWT:  The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

UPDATE: A potential ticking bomb or a test run?

From Agimarc in comments #15 –

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. Cheers -

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (97 votes cast)
Defcon1 Legal Threat: California's near miss on new laws to jail climate skeptics, 9.6 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hpydveu

160 comments to Defcon1 Legal Threat: California’s near miss on new laws to jail climate skeptics

  • #
    Stonyground

    Eggs are healthy! The guy who did the studies about the dangers of eating too much fat faked his results after he didn’t get the answer that he wanted. I eat eggs every day and, at the age of 57, have very low cholesterol levels.

    170

    • #
      Ron

      As with eggs and diet the science behind these evolve as we get to know more about the subject. Fat is bad then low fat is good and now we have fats that are good again.
      The same has to be said about climate, the more we learn the more we know. The predictions of temperatures rising 8 to 10 degrees are now off the table, so are the ones that quoted 4 to 6 degrees and now we are down to 1.5 to 2 degrees.
      I hate to say it but getting this law in place would have to open up the avenues for a proper debate on the science behind these predictions. I continually read that the science behind the predictions should be debated and what better place then a court of law. The law will work both ways.
      If I had tabled outlandish predictions 20 years ago that today look like total fantasy, I would not like to defend them in a court of law because it would also bring into question my current work.
      What would happen if all the models that we see are questioned and cannot be proven in a court of law? Who would be responsible for the costs that we all share for bad science.
      Who in the science community are willing to stand by their science.
      Or will this bad science be allowed to continue to cost our society.

      110

      • #
        RB.

        After the study early last year that found no correlation with a high fat diet and heart problems, another lot came out with its was because people giving up on high fat diets started to eat bad carbohydrates.

        I suspect they both ignored that amongst all the data is evidence that if you skimp on the fresh fruit and vegetables you will have problems. Something that you were probably taught in school 30-50 years ago before it was about avoiding foods or eating wonder foods.

        I wonder how much this anti-sugar fad is because the industry didn’t pay its tithes.

        30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I thibnk its more sinister than that – its simply that the insane powrs that be want to control every aspect of our lives, specifically pushing us onto a vegie diet. Butthe main thing is control – if you can control what people eat ( and have you ever wondered why they built a doomsday vault in the artic for all plant seeds? ) and control what people think, you have a world full of occultic eco-pagan mindless drones who do as they are told and jump as high as they are told too.

          The eco-lunacy has an aim – the eco-lons believe the earth is a living “goddess” called “Gaia”, as such, anything to reduce humanity (humanity is often viewed by the eco-loons as “parasites” on their goddess ) is A Good Thing. Thsi also tailors in with the infamous Georgie Guidestone which advocate reducing the worlds population by 95% to reduce huamnities impact…byut it basically ammonts to genocide and slavery for those who survive at the behest of the Elite.

          The CO2 nonsense is just the end-run around democracy in action, but at its heart is Eco-Nazism, this is also laid out very clearly in Agenda 21.
          Out of all this the UN is planned to be the new global govt.

          From the UN Universal Decalration of Human Rights:

          Article 29.

          (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

          (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

          (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

          10

          • #

            Article 29.

            “(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.”

            Ha! No one has duties to ‘the’ community. The same as ‘the’ community has no duties to one that wishes not to participate in that insane community!! Folk can agree to a community or not!

            “(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

            Such motherhood drivel! An insistence on submission to the authority of any others that may wish to be that authority! Just what the hell is a democratic society? I guess I am not much of a democrat! :-)

            “(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

            The United Nations clearly has no principles, and their only purpose is one of subjugation of any and all individuals!!

            00

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    The defind “truths” in this legislation don’t even abide by the laws of physics. Henry’s law says if the Ocean gets warmer it becomes less Acidic. As less Carbon dioxide can be held dissolved in solution in it. Some Scientific truth ha. Can’t win a debate with facts lock up the ones that know more than you.

    241

    • #

      They’ll repeal Henry’s Law in California.

      280

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Henry’s law says if the Ocean gets warmer it becomes less Acidic more alkaline.

      There – fixed it.

      100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

      “All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

      — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]“

      or in Josef Goebbels words:

      “The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness.

      The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.[2]“

      00

      • #

        “All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]“

        I have never seen a more apt description of the whole SCAM of CAGW or Climate Change!

        10

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    We live in such a irresponsible political society that there are some areas that can NEVER be developed due to the dangers of abusing and destroying ourselves.
    Our atmosphere is pressure dense and as such our current technology compensates with greats amounts of torque and fuel consumption to move around in it.
    There is a few instances and only one surviving group from a rip in our atmosphere where incredible speeds can be achieved and only a fraction of fuel used. Ripping our atmosphere for travel would totally destabilize much of our weather patterns. This is why this technology can NEVER be developed…
    Companies love profits and will do ANYTHING for it.
    This is why I dropped this area of study.

    45

  • #
    Lord Jim

    I think this law would be unconstitutional in the US.
    I read it as an act of desperation – an inability to win the argument on its merits is now spawning totalitarian edicts, or, as Ghandi said:
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    This is stage 3.

    260

    • #
      Wendy

      Yes, there’s not a chance in Hades that this would pass the Supreme Court. Unconstitutional, but we said the same thing about Obamacare, Dream Act, etc…..
      To get before the SC tho, it would have had to be passed into law and who knows what would happen between the time it passes and when it would finally be heard by the SC.

      200

      • #
        Lord Jim

        On the other hand, it makes great fodder for Trump – if, that is, he picks up on it and attacks it for what it is.

        140

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The thing about hard-Left ( Communist ) Leftists is all the matters is power – they dont care what it takes, they will burn down stuff and kill for it.

        California is a basket case, and people figured it might just die off an go away, however I believe america might get more “change you can believe in” but it might be along the lines of “Living in intersting times” type of change….

        10

    • #
      Don

      The meat of the law just extends the statute of limitations for an existing law, which presumably is constitutional.

      51

    • #
      Dave in the States

      The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is based in California is very left leaning, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA can classify co2 as a pollutant. We can not count on the courts to do the correct thing.

      Academic freedom is hanging by a thread. It is a modern day Inquisition surrounding climate change dissent. Young scientists will effectively scuttle their careers by voicing any skepticism on this subject.

      241

      • #
        Dave in the States

        I should add that this could then be applied to what school teachers teach, how local policy makers in act public policies, views expressed by consulting engineers, and views expressed by public servants in any capacity. Tyranny indeed.

        150

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Yes, Lenin openly stated that he belived schools were primarily indoctrination centres first, education second.

          Get your kids out of public schools…..!!

          10

      • #
        delcon2

        Lets hope Trump gets the nod in November.He has already said he will be looking very hard at the Supreme Court judges.

        91

      • #
        George McFly......I'm your density

        I agree. I think it sounds really scary

        50

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      “an act of desperation”…….”to sue fossil fuel companies”.

      They don’t gaol companies. They fine them. Fossil fuel companies operate all over the world, not just in California. So California would be working here to extract penalties from a much wider base than California. And US law has some bizarre “compensation” penalty principles, too. There are a lot of implications.

      A desperate new method for gaining external funding.

      100

      • #
        Bobl

        Nope, would be easy for shell to say, “fine then Mr California, we won’t supply you with any fossil fuels, followed by British petroleum, Opec, and every other oil producer not based in California. I wonder what the legislature would do then? Nov California to Nevada?

        130

        • #
          Bobl

          Erg, predictive text strikes again that was supposed to say “move California to Nevada”

          50

  • #
    PeterS

    No doubt this will spread into other areas. Why aren’t all the scientists getting together to fight this government clampdown on the pursuit of the truth? Oh I forgot. They get funding from the government. So sad to see science decaying into the realm of fiction, selfishness and greed. I bet the likes of Newton, Joel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Einstein and hundreds of others would be disgusted with modern scientists, and perhaps call them traitors to the true scientific cause. It really is about time all scientists stood up together and shouted enough is enough, and told the governments to shut up and fix the real issues of today, such as public transport, roads, population density, food, water, education, hospitals, housing, etc. Oh dear I have such a short memory – I know I know; they get funding from the governments.

    230

    • #

      You seem to be claiming that Meteorology is a science! Meteorology is a subset of the social sciences, much like political science. Meteorology is the art of political storytelling. Any reference to something with a scientific basis is simply bad storytelling! Meteorology: Simple, Straightforward, and Wrong, every time!!

      64

      • #
        TedM

        Will: perhaps you need to delete Meteorology and insert Climatology.

        80

        • #

          TedM June 4, 2016 at 7:07 am

          “Will: perhaps you need to delete Meteorology and insert Climatology.”

          TedM,
          NO! It is the old farts in academic meteorology that refuse to accept that that they have been way way out-scammed by the AlGorestas, using the exact same fake science that is so prevalent in meteorology! All the BS must be stomped into the Earth then paved over to prevent any return to what we have at present! Science is so unbelievably hard to do! Max Planck damn near died attempting to understand his own equation. Perhaps this was the intent of the Gods!
          All the best! -will-

          62

          • #
            PeterS

            You just proved my point. Meteorology, which is in fact a science is often a distortion of the truth. Such distortions have already penetrated several other sciences. Don’t change the definition of science by excluding a “polluted” field of study from the list of actual scientific studies like meteorology and climatology. Look at the root cause – namely greed for money, prestige and power.

            50

            • #

              PeterS June 4, 2016 at 1:13 pm

              “You just proved my point. Meteorology, which is in fact a science is often a distortion of the truth. Such distortions have already penetrated several other sciences. Don’t change the definition of science by excluding a “polluted” field of study from the list of actual scientific studies like meteorology and climatology. Look at the root cause – namely greed for money, prestige and power.”

              I refuse to accept such notion! The ‘weather forecasters’ sometimes mistakenly referred to as meteorologists are a GUILD a loose organization of aware apprentices, journeymen, and masters. Each trying to do the best they can from what they have! They are the direct descendents of the Astrologers, also excellent record keepers for all posterity.
              Current academic meteorologists are descendents of those kicked out of the astrologers guild for having no personal integrity whatsoever! These are the folk that distort, modify, adjust, harmonize, the historical record for their own financial or political gain.

              00

  • #
    John Watt

    This reads like the outline of a script for one of those apocalypse style movies. Maybe the script writers swapped jobs with the legislation drafters.
    These guys really do need The Donald to get them back to reality.
    In the meantime the pursuit of the real drivers of climate continues.

    150

  • #
    David Maddison

    It won’t be long before people are charged, “1984″ style for being “thought criminals”.

    160

  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    A Political columnist , one George Will was quoted at Watts Up With That concerning the attitude of ‘progressives’ and RICO, the latest instrument of destruction of the scientific method.

    ‘Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.’

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-settled-science-consensus-du-jour/2016/04/22/46acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
    It would seem the administration in California is imbued with this philosophy.

    130

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. The alarmist are getting very very desperate as their scam starts to fall to pieces.

    222

    • #
      John Smith

      True …
      we should remind ourselves that this kind of stuff is only cropping up because nature is failing to cooperate with alarmist predictions.
      Oh dang … nature is in denial.

      111

  • #
    pat

    a must-read:

    1 Jun: Washington Times: Valerie Richardson: Climate spin doctor took charge after professors’ ‘mistake’ called for prosecuting skeptics
    In the days after 20 professors fired off a letter urging President Obama to investigate climate skeptics for suspected federal racketeering charges, the climate change movement went into full damage-control mode.
    Philip Newell, creative media manager of the public relations firm Climate Nexus, described the Sept. 1 letter as “a big mistake,” advising activists and scientists to downplay the prosecution angle and spin the story away from individuals and toward fossil fuel companies, according to emails obtained Wednesday by The Washington Times…
    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/climate-pr-firm-took-charge-after-professors-calle/

    also worth a read. McArdle elsewhere is described as a libertarian, tho she sounds willing to have lots of $$$ thrown at pretending to counter CAGW:

    1 Jun: Bloomberg: Megan McArdle: Global-Warming Alarmists, You’re Doing It Wrong
    http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-01/global-warming-alarmists-you-re-doing-it-wrong

    110

    • #
      delcon2

      I think they may have woke up that if this has to go to court,the”Will”be in a lot of trouble.

      50

  • #
    Sean

    The key word in this is “sue” and as others point out, targeting fossil fuel companies. Remember, this is about a tobacco analogy, where a lawsuit resulted in settlement charges and new taxes raising the price of a product 3-5 fold with the bulk of the revenue from its sale, ~75% in some states, going to the government. The tobacco companies are still there, they still make money even though their sales are smaller. The government does not want to put them out of business because of the revenue. The California government feels entitled to all the money it imagines it might ever need. The gas and oil companies are a lucrative target. They’d love to receive $2 in tax for every dollar spent on the fuel. They are parasites and a sustainable parasite does not destroy its host.

    240

    • #

      Sean,

      how right you are.

      In much the same manner as they did it with tobacco, they are doing the same with CO2.

      If tobacco is so bad, just ban it outright. No no no! Place a Tax on it, and just keep bumping up the price, all of it in Government taxes.

      If CO2 is so bad, just stop the source of those emissions. No no no! Introduce an ETS and just keep bumping up the price, all of it going to the Government, oh and the UN as well, we can’t forget them now, can we.

      Sound familiar?

      Tony.

      210

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Agreed Tony. if it was so critical they would force anyone with hydrogen tech patents to hand it over…..

        00

  • #
    Anton

    The way round this is to phrase skeptical discussions of global warming as arguments about what the law in California should be.

    50

  • #

    I was just listening to Lateline on our ABC talking about climate change and the need to reduce coal exports, invest in renewable energy and so on.
    The salient point is that they are claiming that most of the population, 70-80%, think we ought to be addressing climate change so I guess that is why our politicians also believe in it. I suppose that we could end up with Californian legislation as well; we still have 18C on the books.

    In the meantime the wind turbines have been chugging away between 5 and 20% capacity for the past three days, currently 20%.

    150

    • #

      The ABC need only look across Bass Strait to the
      energy crisis in Tasmania. The trouble with hydro,
      like all renewable energy, it’s so dependent on the
      whether. No form of renewable energy can operate w/out
      fossil fuel back-up and since the cable bringing power
      from Victoria has been damaged diesel has had to be used
      at great expense.Even so the State faces power black-outs
      costing heaps…

      The Green Party attributes all of the above to carbon
      trading cupidity. I’d attribute it to Green stupidity.

      180

      • #

        Tasmania’s problem arose due to running its dam levels from about 50% down to 20% and selling its green energy over the cable to Victoria. If you look back at the Hydro announcements you will see they were talking about the biggest profit ever of about $300 million a couple of years ago.

        The idea of the BassLink cable was to sell electricity at peak times and buy cheap off peak Yallourn coal fired electricity. However, it didn’t go as planned and it was used as a lifeline. In October last year they mothballed the Tamar Valley gas power station since it was not needed. Then in December they announced they were going to use up to 60% of Yallourn electricity over the Summer months due to the low dam levels of around 23%. About mid Dec. the cable mis-functioned and they were left stranded. They re-started the Tamar Valley station and negotiated with industry to reduce their power consumption (Comalco, Temco and the Boyer paper mill). As well they decided to install 200 MW of diesel generators. Currently, the dam levels are up to 23% having got as low as 13% in April.

        Last night their CEO was talking about low Spring rainfall being a factor of their dilemma, but if you look at the BOM rainfall maps you find that there was average rainfall in the west coast catchments where the dams are. The rainfall at Strathgordon was normal. Tasmania is in a winter rainfall zone and if you run the dams down to 23% at the beginning of Summer I would blame management not the rainfall.

        Perhaps Tasmania requires more electricity than the dams will provide; if this is the case then it must think about more gas generation otherwise it will be another recipient of Victorian coal fired electricity as well as S. Aust.

        As yet the cable repair has not been completed and this has been hampered by the winter frontal systems passing through Bass Strait. Perhaps by July. The cost of the exercise has been significant, loss of production, cost of diesel generators, but there is also the intangible cost of the loss of their green credentials.

        171

        • #
          Joe McCarthy

          October last year they mothballed the Tamar Valley gas power station since it was not needed

          Never “mothballed”. In October 2013 the combined cycle plant went into long term storage. From the date of Hydro ownership 01 July that year it ran intermittently during the winter.
          Had it continued to operate during the period from Spring 2013 to Christmas 2015 as it had from September 2009 until 30 June 2013, production could have approached 2000 GWH which is roughly equivalent to 15% reservoir levels. Its only fault is that it does not produce “Green energy”; an imaginary product prized by the Very Gullible and the Justas Gullible. (they roam wild and free in abundance in Tassie) If you have ever seen the rear end of a dairy cow when the grass is in the flush, you will know what “green energy” actually looks like.

          200 MW of diesel generators

          And another 100 MW in North Central Tasmania.
          After proving the lack of reliability of all “renewables” the gullible talk of doubling down and installing more useless wind driven bird macerators.
          After proving the lack of reliability of HVDC marine cables the gullible talk of doubling down with another.
          As Albert said “repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different result is a sign of sheer insanity”.

          60

          • #

            That report on 7.30 the other night which detailed the problem in Tasmania, (at this link, a video of 5.25) it says that the Cable ship to repair the cable requires, umm, 20 days of calm seas.

            In Bass Strait! Huh! Good luck with that.

            Tony.

            100

            • #
              ianl8888

              Thanks for the link, TonyOz

              We notice that Hydro Tasmania and assorted politicians, consultants, hangers-on etc admit to a “mistake”, inaccurate modelling and other spin descriptors.

              None admit the truth – reckless mismanagement.

              60

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        Beth,
        The ABC must have heard you. There was a segment in last night’s 7:30 report, towards the end, with what seemed to me to be a remarkably comprehensive and objective report on the Tas/Baslink situation.
        That’s the Friday June 3 episode.
        Cheers,
        Dave B

        60

  • #
    Don

    I think this died because the powers that be realized that the law was neutral on global warming position (preambles and whereas words are meaningless) and opened the alarmists to liability for any bad claims *ever* made. The alarmists do *not* want the courts to decide on the science, when they have money train rolling. California is still horribly managed.

    150

    • #
      Spetzer86

      I was thinking along those lines. Deceiving/misleading the public sounds a lot like forcing public spending and tax dollars to address projections that are not subsequently backed up by future reality. Is a 4-6C temperature increase projection a fraud if no real change in temperature is observed over a 20 year period? Is changing past temperature records fraud if those changes are done to enforce the belief that temperatures had actually change?

      122

      • #

        I wondered the same thing, but the declaration at the top makes the intent clear. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge can tell us whether Sec 2 a (1) and (2) mean nothing, or really do make this one sided? If they don’t mean anything, why write them up in law?

        71

      • #
        tom0mason

        Spetzer86,

        Surely it would be simpler to legally define ALL catastrophic climate changes as products of humankind, and outlaw all descriptive phrases, allusions and indirect references about natural climate variation from being reported as anything other than benign.
        Plenty of wriggle-room in the middle for the lawyers to make stacks of cash — – what is there not to like… :)

        30

  • #

    star comment
    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. Cheers -

    200

    • #

      Thanks for this Agimarc. I searched for what “moved to inactive” meant but didn’t find an explanation like yours. I will update the post. I want more on this.

      132

      • #
        jim2

        “The bill may be dead for now, but it’s not completely gone. According to the Times, the language could be reintroduced or inserted into another bill as part of the amendment process.”

        http://www.examiner.com/article/proposal-by-california-dem-would-allow-prosecution-of-climate-change-skeptics

        “The bill is considered dead because the house-of-origin deadline is midnight Friday and the state Senate is not scheduled to meet again before that. Later this year, however, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process.”

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

        70

      • #
        jim2

        “It happens every year in the waning days of the California Legislature: A bill is amended to address a completely different subject, then brought up for a vote without going through the full legislative process. It’s known as “gut-and-amend.” And although the practice draws scorn from many, lawmakers insist there are good reasons to use it.

        You might wonder what the Silver Lake Reservoir in Los Angeles County has to do with gun buyback programs? Absolutely nothing, of course. But a couple weeks back, Democratic Assemblyman Mike Gatto took his reservoir bill and turned it into something else entirely. It would now require that guns brought to buyback programs be tested before they’re melted to assure they haven’t been used in crimes.”

        http://www.capradio.org/articles/2014/08/27/its-gut-and-amend-time-at-the-capitol/

        “The initiative would require a bill to be in print and online for 72 hours before it can be voted on. The provision is intended to counter the all-too-often used practice of last moment gutting a bill on one subject that has been through committee hearings and substituting an entirely different law with no time for legislators to consider it before a vote. In addition, the measure would require video recording of open legislative meetings to be placed online.”

        https://www.kcet.org/ballot-brief/gutting-the-gut-and-amend-process

        90

    • #
      delcon2

      Reminds me of the ETS which we didn’t know we had.Hunt says it’s”Benign”What say you?

      80

  • #
    Ruairi

    In the U.S.,The Land of the Free,
    Where the skeptics who dare disagree,
    May in future be jailed,
    In a State that prevailed,
    By their climate Bills,spread tyranny.

    250

  • #

    You know, the longer I live, the closer we are to having Atlas Shrugged reclassified as non fiction!

    Tony

    200

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Tony,

      You are a modern day prophet. I kid you not.

      Roy

      90

      • #
        ianl8888

        Fair enough, but Cassandra has been saying that for quite some years now. It’s self-evident, actually … that’s why Cassandra desisted.

        I used to believe/hope that rationality and Renaissance-type empiricism would prevail. How terribly naive, how horribly wrong, I was.

        20

    • #
      pattoh

      Ahoy Tony

      I recall the story of the grid collapse in California.

      You have to wonder at the capacity of the MSM to dull & erase memory. ( that is what TV & smart phones are for)

      You rightfully keep “wishing” that a good taste of life with out electricity could be brought into the consciousness of the public.

      I agree wholeheartedly!

      It would absolutely focus a few dreamers attention onto the realities of modern life.

      I should imagine there are a few Vandemonians whose eyes & minds are opening.

      Wouldn’t it be entertaining to pull the plug on Canberra for a week!

      90

      • #

        pattoh,

        I know I’ve mentioned this a few times, and this time, refer down Thread here to Comment 29.1.

        This is from The Great North East blackout of 2003 in the U.S. when 55 million people lost electricity from a cascading series of events. The sequence of events is detailed at this link, and note particularly from the time 4.05, where it all happens in seconds.

        Now, something similar will happen if Hazelwood is taken off line. The plants will try to stay up, but one by one they’ll just drop off, and black out first South Australia, then Tasmania, and then Victoria will just go too.

        In that American situation, at the end, 256 power plants were removed from the grids. The big Nukes just immediately SCRAMmed down safely, and they would have been the last of them to come back up on line after three/four days or so, like some of the big coal fired plants. Some people were without power for a week ten days, you know, a bit like I was here in Rockhampton after Cyclone Marcia. Amazing what days without electricity can do.

        Tony.

        70

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Tony, and 1984 too.

      70

    • #
      Annie

      Yes, you are right Tony.

      70

  • #
    DMA

    I think the answer to this attitude of using innuendo and supposition upon which to base legislation is to propose a legislative resolution based on CO2 science( see http://www.texaspolicy.com/multimedia/video/at-the-crossroads-session-ii-not-a-pollutant-co2-is-the-gas-of-life)that declares an intent to promote release of CO2 to improve and protect the environment and humanity.

    50

  • #

    On the other hand, the same bill would have permitted suing the IPCC for misleading the world about the risks of climate change.

    111

  • #
    Raven

    It’s curious that in the USA, some ardent supporters of their right to bear arms suggest they need those guns to protect themselves from their Government.
    I mean . . . really?

    I’ve always thought that was a bit wacky, but maybe there’s something in it.

    80

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      If you study the writings of our founders you’ll understand why. :-)

      110

    • #
      James Bradley

      Absolutely, Raven.

      As an Aussie who always had firearms at home from a kid and is qualified in numerous firearms including assault rifles and chemical munitions as part of my job – here’s the thing our whimpy left wing commentators in Australia miss about the USA’s second amendment when they rabbit on about ‘when it was written it was meant for a country that only had muskets and pistols etc etc etc why do people have to have military weapons and assault rifles surely that wasn’t the intent etc etc etc again… ‘

      Well this is it in a nutshell – the people need to be armed at least as adequately as the government or the second amendment fails the people.

      130

      • #
        delcon2

        An armed population is very difficult to control.That is why the UN keep pushing “Our”governments to get rid of fire-arms.

        101

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          And there you have your finger on the real reason for gun control.

          90

        • #
          Egor TheOne

          Delcon2,

          They don’t want a public that can defend itself.

          They want a public that is compliant with all their absurdities , easy to manipulate and therefore easy to extract huge taxation from for their many squanderthons and grossly overpaid do nothing jobs .

          It’s a case of the wolves having the sheep’s best interests at heart right up until they’re on the dinner menu!

          80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …the people need to be armed at least as adequately as the government or the second amendment fails the people.

        I’s now quite impossible for the citizens to be as well armed as the government. They have weapons that no one could even imagine when the second amendment was proposed. But there is another very good reason to be armed. Crime is up nearly everywhere with home invasion robberies being the most dangerous single reason I might need to defend my home from attack.

        The founders reasoned very simply that you cannot be free unless you can be armed. That reasoning still holds up today.

        Remember one other thing about guns. Only the law abiding citizen obeys the gun laws. The criminal provably does not. It is airhead dumb to think that gun control laws, even confiscating guns will stop the criminal from being armed and using those guns to assure successful commission of their crimes.

        Look at it from another direction. If I call for help it can take 5 to 10 minutes for someone to get here. If I’m armed my gun is in my hands in seconds.

        110

        • #
          Annie

          It’s strange, or not really, how it is that the criminal element always seem to be able to acquire weapons, is it not?

          70

        • #

          “It is now quite impossible for the citizens to be as well armed as the government. They have weapons that no one could even imagine when the second amendment was proposed. But there is another very good reason to be armed. Crime is up nearly everywhere with home invasion robberies being the most dangerous single reason I might need to defend my home from attack.”

          Roy
          Do not kid yourself! Nomatter how well the combined armed forces of US government are armed they will not advance against two flaming torches and three pitchforks for every US soldier. They are simply are not that stupid!
          The second amendment of the US constitution is but a reminder to those that consider themselves the elite, that the well armed combined forces of the US military are indeed ‘your’ worst nightmare!
          All the best! -will-

          60

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Will,

            I did not say it would be impossible to resist the government. I said only that the citizen cannot be as well armed as the government.

            As for the rest of your statement, yes, probably troops would not fire on civilians… …or maybe they would. The country is split in two with those who still regard the Constitution as determining what government can and cannot do being in the minority. So the price of resistance could be very high.

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Forgot this part.

              Those who have no regard for the Constitution also have little regard for property or life. So I hope we never push to find out what the limit is. If the country elects to go where I don’t want to go as the result of an honest election, then I must go along with the rest. I will resist in any way I can. And it’s noteworthy that under soviet rule there were black markets in all sorts of goods if you were willing to take the chance and become involved. Those with sufficient will can always find a way to survive and do better than the rest. But I would rather be free. I keep remembering how Patrick Henry ended his address to the Virginia House of Burgesses, March 23, 1775.

              00

        • #
          James Bradley

          As the Duck says:

          “In other neighbourhoods people call 911 – in my neibourhood I am 911″

          20

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            An armed population cannot defend itself against any government. And it must not be allowed to create militias independent of government.

            However an armed population can prevent an invader from getting a walkover. And knowledge that arms are available in households serves as an effective deterrent to all kinds of burglars.

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              The thought that a would be intruder may face an armed citizen is a good deterrent. But there is another good deterrent, good lighting running all night at every place where someone could enter the house. The thug doesn’t want to be seen, so he goes where it’s darker.

              The price of the lighting is insignificant compared with other power usage and I never notice the $50 or so that mine is costing me every year. And yes, I calculated it out based on the average hours of darkness. It’s virtually free in the larger picture.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                And I do mean actually on all night. If it’s motion sensitive the thug can get far too close. But seeing the light keeps them out on the street.

                It tells everyone, you will be seen if you come to my door. Prevention is better than confrontation.

                00

      • #
        Raven

        Yep, I understand the US second amendment and I don’t have strong feelings about gun control.

        Agreed, the weak argument about muskets vs assault rifles is a furphey, I reckon. Crikey, when John Howard introduced the Oz gun laws it was to target (pardon the pun) semi-automatic weapons.
        This resulted in myself surrendering a .22 semi-auto rifle and keeping a bolt action .303.

        Ha . . . if someone had the intent, they could easily ‘do a Martin Bryant’ with a bolt action large caliber weapon. I too have done my time in the Army using all sorts of interesting weapons.

        The idea I was pondering is that in an advanced first world nation like Oz or the USA in 2016, I think it’s very unlikely we’d see a situation arise where arms would be taken up against the Government, so I reckon that argument is also weak. Does anyone really believe that US legislators maintain a constant nagging fear of that armed populous? Nah . . .

        But if we’re talking about Afghanistan, f’rinstance . . different kettle of fish.

        41

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          John Howard tried to ban all private ownership of firearms. It was only a massive effort in opposition which watered it down to what we got.

          Howard knew nothing of firearms use. He seized on some bookwork which a former politician had done and based his policy on that.

          The fact was that the populous states of NSW and Victoria already had restrictive gun laws, tiny Tasmania did not.

          10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech is no longer a reliable defense against prosecution under such laws. This one is clearly unconstitutional. But no one in the right places cares about the Constitution anymore.

    Maybe Trump will, if he can get elected. Maybe…

    120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

      Now that I’m not under the pressure of an appointment to keep I can add this.

      We all know who will be the arbiter of the dangers of climate change and what constitutes misleading the public. And it will not be honest in any way, shape or form.

      Should such a suit take place I would love to be on the jury, if for no other reason, to see the argument, testimony and evidence the prosecution would present. But fat chance! The minute they find out I’m a regular on Jo Nova — and I’ll bet anything they’d ask — I would be dismissed from the jury without further ado.

      Dishonesty now becomes engraved in blackletter law, admittedly stopped this time but still hanging around waiting for its chance to strike a successful blow against the First Amendment.

      110

      • #

        Roy,
        Soon in the USA, the second amendment of the constitution must restore the first amendment of the constitution. I am not looking forward to that. I wish it could be more civilized, however with the same stomping into the earth of the true offenders, not their hired defenders, until only a grease spot remains, then paving over all of that! Do the offenders have any idea of what the hired defenders will do to them, with glee!
        All the best! -will-

        80

      • #
        RB.

        If its anything like trial by social media, you’ll be in court for using whether instead of weather.

        Like S18 where an activist judge put together an irrelevant mistake in an article and that the rest of the article contained undeniable facts that offended to find a journalist guilty. Meanwhile, nobody pulls up the countless leftwing journalists who write that white males have a character flaw.

        30

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Indeed, I do have a character flaw. Somewhere along the line as I went through life I learned that it was better to ask relevant questions than it was to immediately believe everything some “expert” or “authority” figure told me I should or should not do. And that makes them very angry.

          So yes, I, a white male, do indeed have a character flaw. I don’t run with the herd. The journalists are correct. And to hell with them.

          00

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
      I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
      Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136362.html?src=t_liberty

      50

  • #
    Another Ian

    California (and other states) get a mention in

    “The united states of total paranoia” and

    “Arrested just for looking weird”

    Jeremy Clarkson “For Crying Out Loud! The world according to Clarkson Volume Three”

    50

    • #

      Another Ian June 4, 2016 at 6:45 am · Reply

      “California (and other states) get a mention in
      “The united states of total paranoia” and
      “Arrested just for looking weird”
      Jeremy Clarkson “For Crying Out Loud! The world according to Clarkson Volume Three”

      Ian,
      You seem to thinking of “My Hero”, Ted Kaczynski, closely followed by the guy that after stealing so much cash, dove out of the rear door of that Boeing 727, with nothing but his self packed parachute and all the money!
      All the best! -will-

      40

  • #
    TedM

    “when the legislation decrees a government department edit is “truth””

    Is that a typo Jo, did you mean edict?

    60

  • #
  • #
    Gymmie

    now does any one wonder why Trump is doing so well???

    110

  • #
    el gordo

    O/T

    Graham Lloyd in Saturday Oz.

    ‘Activist scientists have been accused of distorting surveys, maps and data to misrepresent extent of coral bleaching.’

    111

  • #
    Robber

    Unbelievable. “Land of the free and the home of the brave”, except in California.
    But they are not alone. Wasn’t it the BBC that decreed that climate skeptics should not be heard? And (not my) ABC follows the same religion.

    70

    • #
      Peter C

      When I first read about this I had a sense of anxiety and foreboding which has not gone away.

      Recently I was in Philadelphia PA. I visited the Maritime museum which had quite a section on the slave trade. As part of that there was a notice board titled What Does it Mean to be Free, with contributions from school children. One of them wrote;

      “It means being able to voice an opinion without being punished”

      I would like to be able to send that to the California Senators. They need to be reminded about what it means to be free.

      130

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Psalms 8:2 – Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings have you ordained strength because of your enemies, that you might still the enemy and the avenger.

        100

      • #
        mikewaite

        Peter, your comment reminds me of the visit that we made last year to the Magna Carta exhibition
        at Durham cathedral. Whilst the exhibition itself was extremely interesting the final section was particularly revealing .
        Each visitor had a token and they were invited to vote the token in one of six bins representing the “freedoms ” that we are
        supposed to cherish , eg , right to work , freedom from gender or race discrimination , right to protest and unionise , etc .
        Well the bin that was most full , so much so that it made the others look empty , and in fact would not accept any more tokens
        was the bin for ” the right of free speech” .
        Lest you think this a purely anglo saxon preference , the speech , appearance and dress of the visitors showed that it represented
        a universal opinion.

        30

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    The Lunatics are in charge .

    Medievalism is upon us again .

    The Pitchforkers now want to make policy … those that do not believe lest ye be crucified .

    The True B’lvers & Renewable Racketeers want to regress back to ‘witch burnings’ to protect and further their multi-trillion dollar global racket .

    Time to ‘Fix Bayonets’!

    Vote 1 the Donald , everywhere …. the one best hope to shut down this lunacy and round up the instigators and propagators of this global scam .

    100

  • #
    pat

    Robert O in comment #13 mentioned the ABC’s assertion that the vast majority of Australians want action on CC.
    this was all over ABC yesterday.
    it was on RN’s AM with Jake Sturmer – it’s one of only a couple of items still without a transcript today, tho the audio is there.

    3 Jun: ABC: Vote Compass: Australians back carbon pricing, want more action on climate change
    By Jake Sturmer and Clare Blumer
    The data has prompted former Liberal leader John Hewson to cast doubt on the political truism that former Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s campaign to “axe” the carbon tax won him the last election
    Data from the ABC’s Vote Compass shows 63 per cent of Australians support a price on carbon emissions, up from 50 per cent during the 2013 election.
    The results also show three-quarters of Australians want the government to do more to tackle climate change…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-03/vote-compass-climate-change-carbon-price/7467242

    setting aside the following, reported by ABC in April, i’ll do a separate comment on Vote Compass to show what a sham it is:

    15 Apr: ABC The Drum: Mike Steketee: Climate change has dropped off the political radar (and this is a big problem)
    The aversion to talking about climate change during the election campaign reflects a wider problem: our concern for this issue has fallen even while it has become larger and more urgent, writes Mike Steketee…
    The market research company Ipsos has been conducting surveys on the issue since 2007. In that year 54 per cent of people who were presented with a list of issues said climate change was one that needed to be addressed. In the latest report, still to be released, this fell to 38 per cent last year…
    Concern about the need to address rising sea levels has fallen from 29 per cent to 17 per cent over the eight years…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-15/steketee-climate-change-has-dropped-off-the-political-radar/7328538

    60

    • #

      3 Jun: ABC: Vote Compass: Australians back carbon pricing, want more action on climate change

      Me too!

      That fella running Victoria, well he looks likely as the man to take some action.

      I want to see that Dan Andrews bloke standing at Hazelwood in front of hundreds of cameras saying that we’re taking, umm, action on climate change, and closing this old plant down, and then, facing the cameras and smiling broadly, symbolically hitting the proverbial big red button which closes down Hazelwood.

      Then I want to see him, four days later, in front of those same cameras saying here’s why we’re turning Hazelwood back on.

      Tony.

      170

      • #

        It would be a big move since now S. Aust. and Tas. also need lots of megawatts.

        50

        • #

          It would be a big move since now S. Aust. and Tas. also need lots of megawatts.

          Out-take from my Submission for Queensland 50% Renewables.

          Brisbane and the Gold Coast consume more electrical power than South Australia and Tasmania COMBINED.

          Tony.

          More on the Weekend Unthreaded (hopefully) – (Attention Joanne, I sent you an email mentioning the Submission on Wednesday. My email probably got lost amongst all the other emails)

          20

    • #
      Lord Jim

      Robert O in comment #13 mentioned the ABC’s assertion that the vast majority of Australians want action on CC.

      Well, that wouldn’t include the introduction of an ETS or carbon pricing, because that would do nothing to fight ‘climate change.’

      Not, of course, that the public would understand that, because the media, as one cohort, seems to believe an ETS as the universal panacea to cure our droughts and flooding plains etc.

      [I'd be willing to do it, if, say, anyone who spruiked it indemnified the country against any unnecessary losses incurred thereby.]

      30

  • #
    pat

    whether it’s for CBC, or ABC, Vote Compass would appear to have a built-in bias!

    Oct 2015: CBC: Vote Compass: Most feel government should do more to combat climate change
    80 per cent of respondents believe government should do more to reduce GHGs
    A large majority believe the government should do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while a smaller majority is open to putting a price on carbon to protect the environment, according to the latest findings from Vote Compass, CBC’s voter-engagement tool…
    While 55 per cent of respondents agreed that Canada should impose a price on carbon, 21 per cent were neutral and 20 per cent disagreed. Six per cent had no opinion…
    Developed by a team of social and statistical scientists from Vox Pop Labs, Vote Compass is a civic engagement application offered in Canada exclusively by CBC News.The findings above are based on 632,005 respondents who participated in Vote Compass from Aug. 29 to Oct. 11…
    http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/1.3270365

    16 May: Australian: Chris Kenny: Media Watch Watch: ABC Vote Compass fails to find true north
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny/media-watch-watch-abc-vote-compass-fails-to-find-true-north/news-story/783da7126ec810dd7091d47dca3a8c21

    Vote Compass is for ABC’s audience; you can vote as many times as you like. and that’s only part of the problem with what only claims to be a “civic engagement tool” anyway.

    for ABC to push it all day yesterday as if it were some legitimate poll, is one more reason their funding should be drastically cut:

    8 May: ABC: Vote Compass explained: What is it, and how does it work?
    How do you come up with the questions?
    There are a number of steps involved:
    1.The ABC ran a campaign asking Australians to tell us what issues matter the most to them.
    2.ABC journalists provided ideas about what issues were likely to develop as key subjects of debate during the election campaign.
    3.An academic panel made up of staff from the University of Melbourne, the University of Sydney and Vox Pop Labs developed a slate of more than 100 possible questions, using their own expertise in social science and survey design.
    4.That long list of questions is then put before a sample of Australian voters to gauge public opinion — and that process is critical in narrowing down the final list of 30 propositions…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-08/vote-compass-explained-2016-federal-election/7391480

    70

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      I agree Pat ,

      The vote compass is rigged.

      I made a point of ticking all it’s question options as far right as possible and at the end the summary placed me just right of center .
      Therefore imagine how many moderate coalition supporters would be told by this survey that by their answers , they should vote alp or even greens .
      What a disgrace !

      It is painfully obvious that the ABC is running their own political left agenda and should be shut down .

      Their idea of balanced which is their charter , is a joke !

      And as for the 80% in favor of CAGW ridiculousness , that is probably higher than the same being put before a Q & BS audience.

      So the question is WHO are they surveying ? ….Adam Bandts electorate ?….or maybe Greenpeace’s membership ?

      Are they sure it wasn’t 97% CONsensus ?

      Also it is at odds with a recent CSIRO survey done that puts scepticism in the majority .

      Little wonder that the ABC Marxist Conglomerate are all Trump haters , as he represents the end to their CAGW religous racket.

      And it is all being flogged hard just prior to the pending election .

      The usual Marxists and CAGW propagators are being wheeled out on the ABC , Baird’s ‘The Dumb’ in particular …just a few days ago in fact …..not a sceptic in site …another example of a so called balanced ABC.

      The only remedy is a 100% cut , or a 97% cut would suffice as it seems to be the going percentage these days!

      91

      • #
        pat

        Egor TheOne -

        all it does it claim to place u in a particular political party, according to your answers, & then claim that u agree with that party’s policies.

        does it favour the Greens? seems so:

        2015: SMH: Patrick Batchelor: Why ABC’s Vote Compass doesn’t work for me
        (Patrick Batchelor was a field director during the 2013 federal Labor campaign and the 2012 Obama campaign. He wrote his masters thesis on the Americanisation of Australian election campaigns)
        Every election I take the ABC’s Vote Compass survey, and every election it tells me to vote for a party I don’t support…
        Put succinctly, I’m a rabid inner-city leftie. But in the world of Vote Compass, there is only one answer – I’m a Green.
        The problem is, I’m not a Green.
        I’ve been a Labor Party member for more than 10 years and have volunteered for my two local candidates at every state and federal election since…
        Yet Vote Compass keeps telling me I’m a Green. And I’m not alone. All my fellow Labor volunteers from the state seats of Balmain and Newtown who have taken the Vote Compass survey have experienced the same frustrated bewilderment when told they should vote for the party they are campaigning against…
        I want to like Vote Compass. I really do. It encourages civic engagement and helps people with one of their most important responsibilities as a citizen. But sometimes an online survey like Vote Compass is about as useful as a quiz figuring out which character from Game of Thrones you are. Or maybe I am just a Green after all. Since when has an internet quiz ever been wrong?
        http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-abcs-vote-compass-doesnt-work-for-me-20150325-1m7vlv.html

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        I came out 65% to LNP, even though there is no way I’m voting for anything to do with Turnbull.

        41

    • #

      Pat just listening to the ABC Drum. Three panelists plus the chairperson and Ross Garnaut talking about the need for carbon pricing etc. Talking about bias, it’s a joke, only opinion with no evidence. Still have yet to see the correlation on which is based. Now they are on to bleaching of the Gt. Barrier Reef.

      52

  • #
    pat

    Vote Compass ABC: Credits
    Research Assistants
    Andrew Gibbons, University of Melbourne
    Heath Pickering, University of Melbourne
    Shaun Ratcliff, Monash University

    Academic Advisors
    Simon Jackman, University of Sydney
    Aaron Martin, University of Melbourne
    John Murphy, University of Melbourne
    Helen Sullivan, University of Melbourne
    Sally Young, University of Melbourne

    Project Consultants
    Nicholas Reece, University of Melbourne
    Mark Triffitt, University of Melbourne

    ABC News
    Matthew Liddy, Editor of Interactive Digital Storytelling
    Antony Green, Election Analyst
    Gillian Bradford, Canberra Parliament House Bureau Chief
    Clare Blumer, Reporter
    Ben Spraggon, Designer
    Colin Gourlay, Developer
    https://votecompass.abc.net.au/credits

    Vote Compass was developed by Clifton van der Linden, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. It is presently run by van der Linden along with a team of social and statistical scientists from Vox Pop Labs – Wikipedia

    notice a pattern emerging?

    22 Feb: CleanProsperityCanada: Clear The Next Conservative Party of Canada Leader Must Regain The Lost “Green Conservative” Voter
    By Mollie Anderson
    Between the 2011-2015 election 53% of support lost by the Conservative Party of Canada supported climate action…
    As the 2015 election neared, Canadians for Clean Prosperity sought to understand how these issues were viewed by the conservative voter coalition, how support for climate action was interacting with party choices, and whether conservatives can construct a winning coalition in the absence of climate action supporters. To that end, Vox Pop Labs were asked to analyze their extensive and unique data set to provide in depth analysis of these issues…
    http://www.cleanprosperity.ca/research_it_s_clear_the_next_conservative_party_of_canada_leader_must_regain_the_lost_green_conservative_voter

    61

    • #
      Analitik

      Heck, there’s the problem with Vote Compass – Stefan Lewandosky wasn’t consulted

      21

  • #
    Timo Soren

    Urban legend says that Missouri at one time legislated that pi was exactly 3.14 and the kids would be taught that.
    Math survived.

    40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      “I’ll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missourah!” :)

      30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      It said Oklahoma legislators had passed a law making pi equal to 3.0. I also remember Robert Heinlein in one of his novels mentioning that Tennessee had passed a similar law.
      Cecil had heard this story too, only the state in question was Kansas, leading him to believe the whole thing was made up by big-city sharpies having a little fun at the expense of the rustics.

      The supposed bill in Alabama changing the value to 3.0 (as circulated on the internet in 1998) was a hoax for April 1.

      The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat.
      The bill never became law, due to the intervention of Professor C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote.

      40

    • #
      James Murphy

      Indiana in 1897 – a bill to legislate that pi = 3.2 passed through 1 house unopposed. A short video about it is here

      20

  • #

    Jo, Your reference to ‘technocracy’ rang a bell with me. My apologies for such a long ‘comment’ but I believe it important in the present political ‘climate’. I believe truth has nothing to do with ‘climate change’ it has all to do with a political agenda that had its origins in the early 20th century and looks like being firmly set in place in the near future. Bear in mind as you read the following, there is serious talk about eliminating coins and notes from circulation, which would leave the public with only bank ‘credit’ for all ‘financial’ transactions. How simple it would then be to put in place a ‘carbon currency’ controlled at the centre of finance/credit power.

    00

  • #

    Forgot to add the following

    Taken from A Carbon Currency Future:
    http://www.alor.org/NewTimes%20Survey/A%20Carbon%20Currency%20Future.htm

    The term ‘technocracy’ was in vogue in the early 20th century. It was an American, Charles Ferguson, who first coined the term social credit and wrote a pamphlet “The Technarchy and the Capital College”, where, under the heading “Financial Politics” he explained he was part of a movement formed to “get possession of political power through the scientific control of capital.”

    American writer, Michael Lane, searched out Ferguson’s work and gave readers a comprehensive summary of Ferguson’s intentions in “The Capital College” November 2002. At the time, Michael wrote: “The capital college is the brainchild of Charles Ferguson, who coined the term social credit. It is presented in a pamphlet, The Technarchy and the Capital College (1924); in seven articles in the American News, an English-language newspaper published in Hamburg (1923-24); and in a paper called “Self-Sustaining Educational System” (1930).

    “C. H. Douglas may have been alluding to the Technarchy in his January 25, 1934 speech in Sydney when he said that his anticipation of an age of plenty “was confirmed by the more responsible side of what is called the Technocracy Movement in the United States.” What the term capital college means is: capital, a means of production; college, using the arts and sciences to mobilize capital…”
    You will find Michael Lane’s article here: >http://www.alor.org/Triumph%20of%20The%20Past/TheCapitalCollege.htm#1a<

    Back to Patrick Wood’s “Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy”:
    “Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small. On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based. The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth. Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave…

    What is Carbon Currency and how does it work?
    “In a nutshell, Carbon Currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Currency will expire (like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.

    Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, food production and people movement.
    “Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but they would eventually wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Currency, much the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time. Sounds very modern in concept, doesn’t it? In fact, these ideas date back to the 1930’s when hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens were embracing a new political ideology called Technocracy and the promise it held for a better life.
    “Even now – classic literature was heavily influenced by Technocracy: George Orwell’s “1984”, H.G. Well’s “The Shape of Things to Come” and Huxley’s “scientific dictatorship” in “Brave New World”. This paper investigates the rebirth of Technocracy and its potential to recast the New World Order into something truly “new” and also totally unexpected by the vast majority of modern critics…”

    Background to the Technocrats:
    Mr. Wood has hit on to the fact that it is more than ‘manipulating the markets’. He continues: “Philosophically, Technocracy found it roots in the scientific autocracy of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and in the positivism of Auguste Comte (1798- 1857), the father of the social sciences. Positivism elevated science and the scientific method above metaphysical revelation. Technocrats embraced positivism because they believed that social progress was possible only through science and technology. [Schunk, “Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective”, 5th, 315]

    10

  • #
    Brad

    I’m waiting for the big one where CA simply slides under. Mother Gaia showing her displeasure with stupid people
    I can’t get into trouble or for saying that can I?

    60

    • #
      AndyG55

      Its not your fault… it belongs to San Andreas. :-)

      70

    • #
      Brad

      Well, I can’t move to Australia because I don’t have $15 million to qualify, unless I have family. If only someone would adopt me…

      20

      • #
        Yonniestone

        No problem there Brad, on the form identify as a transsexual progressive with a PhD in Unicorn Diversity and an abhorrence to Democracy.

        They’ll welcome you with open boarders.

        51

  • #
    AndyG55

    OT.. I hope everyone has seen this.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/03/expert-scientists-exaggerated-coral-bleaching-story/

    It must getting close to someone taking court action against these LIARS.

    52

    • #

      It really gets back to scientific integrity which used be an axiom of science- you don’t fudge results- but now in very short supply.

      31

      • #
        Analitik

        But Timmy Flannelly said that the reef dying was the saddest day of his life.
        Maybe we should put Timmy out of his (and our) misery….

        42

    • #
      Mjw

      Better off inspecting the reef in 12 months time and if it is still not dead cut all funding to the University.

      31

  • #
  • #
    pat

    quite funny. read all:

    1 Jun: AtlantaBusinessChronicle: Carla Caldwell: Georgia lawsuit claims Greenpeace ‘is a global fraud’
    A company accused by Greenpeace of destroying endangered forests and destruction of endangered species has filed a lawsuit in a Georgia federal court that claims Greenpeace is guilty of racketeering and trademark defamation – and induces donations for its leaders using ‘sensational misinformation.’
    Resolute Forest Products Inc. (NYSE: RFP) (TSX: RFP), which is based in Montreal, Quebec, on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., STAND (formerly ForestEthics) and a number of their associates…READ ALL
    http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2016/06/georgia-lawsuit-claims-greenpeace-is-a-global.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    comment #36 is in moderation.

    4 Jun: Reuters: Adani may withdraw from Australian coal mine project, citing delays – The Australian
    Indian conglomerate Adani Enterprise Ltd may walk away from its proposal to build one of the world’s biggest coal mines in Australia, citing long delays caused by legal challenges to the project by groups concerned about the environment.
    Adani is battling multiple legal challenges from green groups opposed to its $10-billion Carmichael mine, rail and port project…
    “You can’t continue just holding. I have been really disappointed that things have got too delayed,” Adani told The Australian…
    http://in.reuters.com/article/adani-australia-coal-project-idINKCN0YQ02V

    search results show Australian article is headlined: “‘Lawfare’ risks Adani exit from Queensland coalmine”

    4 Jun: Bolt Blog: What is Turnbull doing to save this $16 billion investment from greens?
    In his first interview with the Australian media, Mr Adani said he was disappointed the “pit to plug’’ project had yet to receive the green light after six years of environmental assessments and court battles.
    Mr Adani, who late last year appealed to Malcolm Turnbull to act over the legal activism, said he hoped the court challenges to Australia’s largest proposed coalmine would be finalised early next year.
    With one court case yet to be heard in the Federal Court, and at least two groups threatening High Court action, Mr Adani warned he could not wait indefinitely…
    Adani Australia chief executive Jeyakumar Janakaraj said the co-ordinated campaign by anti-coal activists to block the mine had damaged Australia’s international reputation. He said the business community in India — where growth outstripped that of China last year — had expressed concern about future investment in Australia…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_is_turnbull_doing_to_save_this_16_billion_investment_from_greens/

    20

    • #
      Another Ian

      Pat

      Re the Andrew Bolt bit

      To borrow from a Jerry Jeff Walker song

      “The answer is peeing in the wind”

      IMO of course

      30

  • #
    cedarhill

    Just another step in the slow march of Western Socialist Democracies march to complete fascism.

    60

  • #
    William Palmer

    “Proximate cause” is used in the law to attach liability.

    If this were used in climate litigation, I believe the deniers would win.

    Proximate cause uses two logical planks: 1. If, not but for______________(such and such an action–emissions of GHGs), climate change–earth’s warming–would not have happened.

    And, 2. Given mans’ actions___________and _________(dumpting CO2, etc.), we can predict that earth’s warming, climate change, etc., would happen.

    I’m a biologist, but it seems to me that the skeptics here would win on both counts.

    I wonder if such a national discourse brought from these litigations might help the skeptics?….because our case could be developed thoroughly in public?

    10

  • #
    Sean

    Progressives are today’s Nazis.

    10

  • #
    dp

    If written by California this would be found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court but it does not need to be written by California to be made the law of the land, be it state for federal. It need only be written by a treaty partner such as the UN. I doubt the UN has anything as absurd as laws guaranteeing free speech.

    00

  • #
    gbees

    “‘think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.’”

    That could have the opposite effect of being used against those who play up the risk of climate change and as a result have caused countries worldwide to waster $billions of taxpayer funds on climate change rubbish.

    00