Anyone want to debate SB1161 - the "Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act"?

It started with spinmeisters such as ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano and Washington Examiner’s Kyle Feldscher.
I opened up this debate with:

Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act SB1161. What it really says. The latest round of right-wing internet hysteria is over the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (full text enclosed). Right now they are celebrating a victory since State Senator James Monning withdrew the bill, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees. What I've found more interesting than the merits or failing of SB1161, is the Right Wing Media's melodramatic misrepresentation of the bill. Here's a sampling. May 31, 2016 by California Political Review's Stephen Frank: "SB 1161: Makes Questioning “Climate Change" a Sue-able Offense. Criminal?" ~ June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner's Kyle Feldscher: "Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" ~ June 2, 2016 Washington Times' Valerie Richardson: "California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics" to name but the three that I've read. Marc Morano's June 3rd Climate Depot post sums up their mentality quite well via Kyle's puff piece, it reads:
June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner: "Marc Morano, a climate change doubter who runs Climate Depot, said the California bill is the logical end point of the debate between believers and doubters. (Morano) said those who believe in climate change have been trying for years to silence doubters and now, given the calls to investigate Exxon Mobil for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and the California bill, there are attempts to actually charge people for their beliefs. "You can't even question the predictions of 50-100 years from now or that's considered hate speech," (Morano) said. "That goes against everything this country was founded on." Morano said climate change believers want to delegitimize their critics instead of engaging in any sort of debate over the science. He said the bill proposed by Allen is another step in silencing dissent. "This is the language of religion, not science," (Morano) said.
Sounds quite frightening and extreme, but then I know a bit about this Morano character, a true master of malicious misinformation campaigns. So I decided to look at California SB1161 myself. Surprise, it's turns out to be nothing like how Morano represented it. Here we have yet another example of how the right-wing PR machine misrepresents issues from the gitgo, reframing everything to suit their own simplistic and painfully myopic storylines. I mean they refuse to even listen to what's being said. Instead they are busy constantly spinning their paranoid machinations about the bad greenies. … link to WUWTW for the text of SB1161

Then I followed up with a close look at Kyle Feldscher’s twisted article.

SB1161 - Response to Kyle Feldscher misleading 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article Regarding the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 - CB1161 Kyle Feldscher, you wrote about Democratic State Senator James Monning withdrawing California Senate Bill 1161, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees and can be reconsidered at a later date. The reason I want to examine your article is because you used that opening to launch into a Marc Morano love fest while completely misrepresenting what this bill was about, or why many people believe such action is needed. In this post I will quote your 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article while explaining why your arguments don't hold any water. In fact, your retelling is typical of the conniving disingenuous misrepresentation of facts that has made many feel they have no choice but to try and legislate honesty - extreme though that may seem. __________________________________________ "Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" by Kyle Feldscher (Nope, if anything the bill wants to make deliberate malicious misrepresentation of true down to Earth facts and findings legally actionable!) Kyle writes: "... According to the reports, which have been criticized for being funded by anti-fossil fuel groups, the company, then just known as Exxon, {It doesn't matter who unearthed them! What about acknowledging that the facts are accurate? Why no show of concern at such systemic disregard for critically important fundamental scientific facts, and honestly representing them?} Kyle writes: knew the burning of fossil fuels could cause global warming as early as the 1970s. However, the company suppressed that knowledge and continued with its practices, and even funded groups to promote an anti-climate change agenda, according to the reports. {They were much more than "reports." Kyle why didn't you use the more accurate "according to overwhelming evidence"?} Kyle writes: Those reports have sparked a larger investigation into Exxon Mobil's practices by four attorneys general, and 16 others have promised to cooperate in some way. ... {Kyle have you read some of this stuff? Why shouldn't citizens be outraged? Please explain, how do you justify what Exxon executives and their PR bullies have done?}
The Road Not Taken: Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions. By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer, September 16, 2015 ~ ~ ~ Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists 100% global warming consensus in Exxon scientists’ research contrasted its $31m campaign to cast doubt on that consensus By Dana Nuccitelli, November 25, 2015 ~ ~ ~ Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General By Justin Gillis and Clifford Kraus November 5, 2015 ~ ~ ~ ExxonMobil Warns of ‘Catastrophic’ 9°F to 12°F Global Warming Without Government Action By Joe Romm, December 7, 2015 ~ ~ ~ A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation. By Shannon Hall, October 26, 2015 ~ ~ ~ Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years By Suzanne Goldenberg, July 8, 2015 ~ ~ ~
Kyle writes: But many {More accurately Republican/libertarian} critics of the bill say it's an attempt to criminalize not believing in climate change and goes against the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. {Where does the First Amendment protect tactical deception employing dirty tricks, lies and malicious slander to deliberately block the public from honestly and constructively learning about what Earth and Climate Scientists have been discovering about what we are doing to our life supporting biosphere?}Continued at WUWTW 6/5/16

I think climate change denial fits entirely within the category of criminal conspiracy and the RICO laws could be applied.
Look at its roots.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."
So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."
There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Both industries also sought to distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the "grassroots".
So the same language and methodology developed by the tobacco lobby to protect market share at the huge expense of the public good was adopted by the fossil fuel lobby to do exactly the same thing. And some of the same figures were there at the start, this includes Steve Milloy, Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. So a massive campaign to deny the public access to crucial information essential to our collective welfare has been going on for decades. Mainstream science has recognized this and asked those involved to stop.
Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
Instead of stopping funding this highly destructive disinformation campaign the fossil fuel lobby has done what any criminal organization would do and is now effectively laundering millions of dollars to be used in this industry created and controlled disinformation campaign.
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon. The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement. It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years. In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said. Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.
This is a criminal conspiracy and people and corporations who engage in it should be liable to suit and eventually imprisonment due to the significant damage currently being done which will only accelerate as business as usual is allowed to continue. Climate change denial doesn't have an ethical, scientific, moral or legal leg to stand on.