[ExI] Fwd: Scientists remain PC

[hkhenson]

>
>
>Published in the Teachers Clearinghouse
>for Science and Society Education Newsletter
>Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 2008, Pg. 21
>
>
>WHY HAVE SCIENTISTS SUCCUMBED
>TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?
>
>Albert A. Bartlett, University of Colorado at Boulder , 80309-0390
>
>Albert.Bartlett at Colorado.EDU
>
>
>Throughout the world, scientists are prominently involved in seeking
>solutions to the major global problems such as global climate change
>and the growing inadequacy of energy supplies. They present their
>writings in publications ranging from newspapers to refereed
>scientific journals, but with a few rare exceptions, on one point
>they all replace objectivity with ?political correctness.?
>
>In their writings the scientists identify the cause of the problems
>as being growing populations. But their recommendations for solving
>the problems caused by population growth almost never include the
>recommendation that we advocate stopping population growth.
>Political Correctness dictates that we do not address the current
>problem of overpopulation in the U.S. and the world.
>
>
>We can demonstrate that the Earth is overpopulated by noting the
>following:
>
>
>A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH
>If any fraction of the observed global warming
>can be attributed to the actions of humans,
>then this, by itself, constitutes
>
>clear and compelling evidence
>that the human population, living as we do,
>has exceeded the Carrying Capacity of the Earth,
>a situation that is clearly not sustainable.
>
>
>As a consequence it is AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
>that all proposals or efforts
>at the local, national or global levels
>to solve the problems of global warming
>are serious intellectual frauds
>if they fail to advocate that we address
>the fundamental cause of global warming
>namely overpopulation.
>
>
>We can demonstrate that the U.S. is overpopulated by noting that we
>now (2008) import something like 60% of the petroleum that we
>consume, around 15% of the natural gas that we consume and about 20%
>of the food we eat. Because the U.S. population increases by
>something over 3 million per year, all of these fractions are
>increasing. Natural gas production in North America has peaked in
>spite of the drilling of hundreds of new gas wells annually. In a
>nutshell, the U.S. in 2008 is unsustainable.
>
>
>Let?s look at two prominent examples of this political correctness.
>The book, ?An Inconvenient Truth? (1) was published to accompany Al
>Gore?s wonderful film by the same name. On page 216 Gore writes;
>?The fundamental relationship between our civilization and the
>ecological system of the Earth has been utterly and radically
>transformed by the powerful convergence of three factors. The first
>is the population explosion??
>
>
>It?s clear that Gore understands the role of overpopulation in the
>genesis of global climate change. The last chapter in the book has
>the title, ?So here?s what you personally can do to help solve the
>climate crisis.? The list of 36 things starts with ?Choose energy-
>efficient lighting? and runs through an inventory of all of the usual
>suspects without ever calling for us to address overpopulation!
>
>
>As a second example, in the Clearinghouse Newsletter (2) we read the
>statement, ?Human Impacts on Climate? from the Council of the
>American Geophysical Union, The title recognizes the human component
>of climate change which we note is roughly proportional to the
>product of the number of people and their average per capita annual
>resource consumption. The last paragraph of the A.G.U. statement
>starts with the sentence, ?With climate change, as with ozone
>depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent.? The rest of
>the paragraph suggests what must be done, and it?s all the standard
>boilerplate. ?Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of
>society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call
>for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and
>government.? Etc., Etc., Etc? There is no mention of addressing the
>overpopulation which the statement recognizes is the cause of the
>problems.
>
>
>A few years ago I wrote an article calling the attention of the
>physics community to this shortcoming.(3) To my amazement, most of
>the letters to the editor responding to my article supported the
>politically correct unscientific point of view. (4), (5)
>
>
>Many journalists look to the scientists for advice. The scientists
>won?t talk about overpopulation, so the journalists and the reading
>public can easily conclude that overpopulation is not a problem. As
>a result, we have things such as the cover story in TIME Magazine,
>April 9, 2007, ?The Global Warming Survival Guide: 51 Things You Can
>Do to Make a Difference.? The list contained such useful
>recommendations as ?Build a Skyscraper,? (No. 9, Pg. 74) but not one
>of the 51recommendations deals with the need to address overpopulation!
>
>
>What?s one to do when scientists and political leaders demonstrate
>their understanding of the fact that overpopulation is the main cause
>of these gigantic global problems, yet the scientists?
>recommendations for dealing with the problems never call for
>addressing overpopulation?
>
>(1) Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency
>of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Rodale Press,
>Emmaus , PA , 2006
>
>(2) Teachers Clearinghouse for Science and Society Education
>Newsletter, Winter 2008, Pg. 19
>
>(3) A.A. Bartlett, ?Thoughts on Long-Term Energy Supplies:
>Scientists and the Silent Lie,? Physics Today, July 2004, Pgs. 53-55
>
>(4) Letters: Physics Today, November 2004, Pgs. 12-18
>
>(5) Letters: Physics Today, April 2006, Pgs. 12-15