Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
Sci Tech

Why Scientists Succumb to Political Correctness

By       Message Frosty Wooldridge       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   23 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 9/18/08

Author 4682
Become a Fan
  (5 fans)
- Advertisement -

Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, University of Colorado at Boulder, addresses America’s love affair with self-delusion. Dr. Bartlett remains the premiere voice in America concerning the greatest predicament facing our civilization in the 21st century.

While everyone in America suffers from its symptoms from gridlock, air pollution, crowding and higher energy prices--no politicians from governors to senators address it. Most Americans avoid demonstrating any awareness or they dismiss it out of hand. Yet, it accelerates as THE single greatest problem facing America and the world in the 21st century.

I’ve known Dr. Bartlett for over 25 years. He hosted the Gamow Lectures at CU for years.  Last month, he lectured in Boulder, Colorado as to the consequences of continued population growth in the USA and the world.  I spoke with him after the presentation at Chautauqua Park to a packed house.

“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,” Dr. Bartlett said. “They present their writings in publications ranging from newspapers to scientific journals, but with a few rare exceptions, on one point they all replace objectivity with “political correctness.”

- Advertisement -

”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 stabilizing our population. 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.

- Advertisement -

“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 60 percent of the petroleum that we consume, 15 percent of the natural gas that we consume and 20 percent of the food we eat. Because the U.S. population increases by over three 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 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.

- Advertisement -

“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 51 recommendations 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 (collapsing fisheries, ozone hole, air pollution, acidification of our oceans via human pollution, dead zones in our oceans, species extinction, 18 million humans die of starvation annually, loss of rainforests….), yet the scientists’ recommendations for dealing with the problems never call for addressing overpopulation?”

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Frosty Wooldridge Bio: Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His books (more...)

Frosty Wooldridge Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

Please Donate

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Over-Population Exponentially Increases Air Pollution

Growing Illiteracy in America: Creating entrenched poverty

U.S. economy in trouble and why

Part 1: Overpopulation in 21st century America--our risky future

Who is to blame for $4.00 a gallon gas? How about $10.00 a gallon?

What America will look like in 2050--fractured nation, multiple languages