It often comes to light over matters of disagreement that one side attempts to shut down the debate by emulating Ring Lardner’s father in The Young Immigrants: “’Shut up,’ he explained.” Of course, this isn’t at all a real explanation, but it sure does slam the door on any further discussion.

This disingenuous tactic is witnessed again and again in the climate-change debate. Most notably it appears in the tactics of those who believe the science is settled, a scientific consensus exists and global warming indeed poses a serious catastrophic threat to our planet – as evidenced by a March 7, 2013, webinar conducted by As You Sow for proxy shareholder resolutions.

As You Sow – which says 18 percent of its members are faith-based organizations – seeks to prompt corporate boards in which it owns stock to adopt its view of climate change. One method to achieve this goal is shutting down the debate completely. As noted in its 2013 “Proxy Preview,” AYS and a “very broad coalition of investors is continuing a vigorous initiative to make companies be more transparent about how they spend corporate treasury money on political campaigns and lobbying.”

Among these initiatives are attempts to force businesses to divulge publicly their donations to so-called “third-party lobbies,” the think tanks that do much of the heavy lifting of independent research on such issues as climate change. As noted in the “Proxy Preview,”

It is not possible to independently determine whether a company contributes to all groups in the political arena. Investors who want more clarity are continuing to focus on spending done by intermediary groups that receive corporate money and spend it on political campaigns and on massaging the political process after elections are over – via trade associations, nonprofit ‘social welfare’ organizations, and charities that promote model legislation, mostly [sic] prominently the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These intermediary groups, the sources of much of the ‘dark money’ that flowed into the 2012 election cycle, have helped set new spending records. (p. 36)

Not mentioned in the “Proxy Preview” yet prominent during the March 7 webinar are The Heartland Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the interest of full disclosure, your humble writer currently is an unpaid policy advisor and once served as a contract managing editor for the former organization.

Both Heartland and the Chamber are on record as committed to further research on climate change before enacting public policies that may have far more devastating economic impacts than the purported damages threatened by global warming. But, for AYS, this simply isn’t moderate enough. In fact, they find this approach “extreme.”

Nothing will suffice for AYS but shutting down the debate completely, regardless the negative ramifications brought about jumping the gun on lowering carbon emissions would exhibit on the nation’s poorest. Such an approach has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific debate and everything to do with mistaking climate-change zealotry for religious faith.


  • RogerMcKinney

    And this shows that groups like AYS are nothing but fronts for socialism. They really don’t care about the climate or environment. They only want their socialist agenda forced on others at any cost.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000947822045 Kyle Sager

    OK, to be really fair about this, climate change deniers have only failed at convincing the the prevailing majority of world-class climate scientists there is doubt for about 30 years or so. So while it may be true that the denial camp has spectacularly belly-flopped off the high dive when it comes to convincing the vast majority of their peers in a field where wide acceptance of one’s ideas is the brass ring, and while it may be true deniers have been producing progressively larger belly-flops for 2 decades straight, debate is healthy even if the world is like a frog in a pot of water with the heat slowly turning up. Fringe is hip. Who cares if the warming today is from CO2 emitted 30 years ago? The integrity of the everlasting infinite non-terminating never-ending ceaseless eternal debate is what is most important! Circular talk is good! There is another place where irrational people have tried to muzzle healthy perennial undying perpetual nonstop continuous debate: ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society We should be encouraging science teachers to instruct our children that there is a serious alternative view that the world is flat. Instead we are so insane as to listen to the best of the best scientists at 50 top-ranked earth science schools globally about climate change. What is the world coming to?

    • RogerMcKinney

      So why haven’t the “best” convinced the “fringe”? Most great ideas were on the fringe and rejected by the majority for a long time. Consensus means nothing in science, except that generally the consensus is wrong and the fringe is right.

      For exhibit A, I offer the eugenics movement to which all the top scientists subscribed before Hitler took it to the logical extreme.

      AGW is not science; it’s politics. If it had to stand on the science alone it would crash and burn.

  • Pingback: Nuns, 60 Minutes, Go After Rep. Paul Ryan | Acton PowerBlog