A student at UC Davis with extensive knowledge about linguistics and cultures around the world, he here contributes two papers on Buddhism written in the course of his studies.

Of course, it is nearly midnight, I’ve had a long, long day and I’m going to go to bed before formatting them to post on Cosmic Essays, so I leave my readers in suspense once more! I will try to get to it tomorrow.

G’night!

English is taught as a concrete language with definite rules for spelling, pronunciation, and grammar. Deviations in the rules are punished in grade school with thick, dark, red lines to grab the attention of the student and say, “Wrong!” But what if it is the teachers that are wrong? What if the spelling that a child gives a word makes more sense than the standardized spelling? Who made the standard anyway? Why do we have rules, and why do they always seem to break themselves in English?

There is an answer: English is in a constant state of change and has been changing for hundreds of years. The fact is English is totally unrecognizable from five-hundred years ago. In the essay, The Meanings of Words Should Not Be Allowed to Vary or Change, by Peter Trudgill, the author states: “The only languages which do not change are those, like Latin, which nobody speaks. Languages change their pronunciations through time… grammatical structures also change” (1). Changes occur in every language. The changes affect grammar, spelling, pronunciation and even the meaning of words. Despite the rules laid before children in the early years of school, English is constantly changing. Amidst the chaos, one must wonder, why does English work at all?

School children are first taught an alphabet with 26 different letters to represent 52 different sounds. This in itself is confusing. Children are taught to memorize which letter orders create which sounds, such as when e follows a consonant the previous vowel is long. Some examples are ‘make’, and ‘rite’. But it is not as simple as that. There are words such as ‘right’, that have no e at all, but for some reason gh makes i a long vowel. We find this happening in other words such as ‘light’, and ‘though’. But even this exception is inconsistent. Consider the word ‘through’. It is not pronounced the same as the word that describes what a person would do to a ball, as one would think looking at the previous rules. To confuse even more, there is also ‘rough’ which has no long sound at all, and has an f sound at the end. It seems the chaos never ends!

Another famous rule to come under criticism is the “I before e except after c” rule. There are plenty of words that support this rule, such as receive, believe, and conceive, but I can think of even more that don’t: weight, rein, reign, neighbor, science, neither, either, sufficient and financier. What is the point of even teaching this rule? It seems it was invented to break itself.

Other spelling rules that are broken have to do with irregular past tense verbs. If ‘sat’ is the past tense of ‘sit’ then why isn’t ‘fat’ the past tense of ‘fit’? If a person previously drove to the store, why then does one say, “I dived in to save her?” Drive and dive are similar, one cannot argue, so why are they so different when spoken about in the past? English is famous for its irregularities.

Word pronunciation is not immune to the changes in language. Over the years a word can go through a complete alteration. Complete syllables can disappear. One might think this is associated with a word that people don’t often say, and that is where the mix-up occurs, but this is incorrect. The most common changing words are the most common words. Take the word I, for instance. It is a common personal pronoun. Some might find it elegant in its simplicity, but it was not always this way. The word five-hundred years ago was Ic. In fact, I is fairly new. After it lost the c at the end it was pronounced ay for a while. Today, we pronounce it aye.

Another funny twist in pronunciation is the letter f. Hardly anyone today can imagine pronouncing every f as a p but at one time, this was the norm. In the book, The Unfolding of Language, by Guy Deutsher evidence for the change is given. The root of English, Italian, Danish and French are all from the same language, Indo-European. One can see where changes occur by looking at the languages side by side: “One difference sticks out in particular: wherever Italian and French have a p, English and Danish have an f instead” (66). The French and Italian words for father are padre and pere and the words for fish are pesce and pesh. This is just one example of change. Other letters to come under linguistic attack are k which has evolved into ch, and t which has evolved into th (66).

There is an explanation to why pronunciation, spelling and grammar change so much in language over a few hundred years which will be explained later. But first, no language study would be complete without taking a look at the change in the meanings of words that occur. Trudgill explains, “The English language is full of words which have changed their meanings slightly or even dramatically over the centuries” (2). Deutscher gives for an example the word ‘resent’ which “seems today an about turn in it’s meaning…(in the seventeenth century) ‘resent’ could mean either ‘take with a good feeling’ or ‘take with a bad feeling’ or more accurately, it could mean take with any feeling” (70). Resent was used commonly to refer to something one appreciated. Today, it is defined “to feel or express annoyance or ill will at” (“Resent”).

Disinterested is another word that is taking on a new meaning. It is mentioned in an article titled Comment & Debate: Armageddon Isn’t Upon Us: The Meanings of Words is seeping away as or language changes. But It’s Not the End of the World, by David McKie. If a person is interested in a company, it means that there is an investment in the company. If a person is interested in a subject, that person is curious about that subject. To be disinterested used to mean that a person had no investment in a company. Uninterested described a person that is not curious about a given subject. More and more, people are using disinterested to describe someone who is not curious. Disinterested as in an investment may disappear altogether, given time.

A person might be baffled as to why all this occurs. A student of English, so familiar with the rules and intricacies of the language might be shocked now to find out that the language is as moldable as Jell-O. This person should be put at ease, for there is an explanation. There is also ample explanation as to why these constant changes don’t create complete chaos and misunderstanding.

There are three motives for change, Economy, Expressiveness and Analogy. According to Deutscher, “Economy refers to the tendency to save effort, and is behind the short-cuts speakers often take in pronunciation (62). He also says, “There are many types of linguistic labor-saving devices, but ultimately they… follow the principle of least effort: pronounce as little as you can get away with” (88). This helps explain why p became f and k became ch. Time and labor saving, the current pronunciations make more economic sense. This also explains why speakers of English say I today, instead of Ic. Blocking the passage of air to create the complete word simply took too much time. This is the most destructive motive for language change. Some sounds are weakened over time and even disappear altogether. Deutscher challenges the reader to follow a word through history and says, “chances are you will see it getting shorter and shorter with sounds and even whole syllables falling by the wayside” (88).

Expressiveness, Deutscher explains, “relates to speakers’ attempts to achieve greater effect for their utterances and extend their range of meaning” (62). He also says “Speakers feel the need to express novel ad abstract ideas or to convey already existing concepts in fresh and original ways” (128) This may explain why the word ‘resent’ did such a one-eighty turn. For added effect, speakers began to use the negative form of resent more and more often until the other meaning completely disappeared.

Analogy is the last motive for change described by Deutscher. Analogy is explained: “The cognitive mechanism that allows us to draw links between different domains is analogy” (120). This relates to expressiveness in certain ways. Taking concrete ideas and comparing them to the abstract is common throughout language. In fact it is the only way to express abstract ideas. The problem with this is that the more a metaphor is used, the less impact it has. The lively metaphors that are used will eventually be assimilated into every day language. For example, understand used to literally mean to stand beneath something. If a person comprehends an idea, they are standing beneath it. (Deutscher129).

How, then, does English work with all this chaos going on? How do people communicate at all, especially when these changes occur rapidly, as they most often seem to do? One explanation is variation. With variation of meanings, speakers will use one or the other in context and that is how mix ups are avoided. For example, if one is at a restaurant and someone shouts, “Look, it’s a man eating shark!” chances are the patrons aren’t going to run out screaming “Jaws!” In context, man eating shark is obviously describing a human being sitting down to a Thresher spiced with a bit of garlic, not a shark that has a taste for humans, (minus the garlic). Context is part of the reason that a chaotic language like English works, despite its broken rules. Two different, and sometimes even opposite meanings can occur at the same time because the speakers are aware of these differences and use them accordingly. Eventually, one meaning may fade away, leaving the most commonly used meaning.

English is safe, for now. Even with all its irregularities, its imperfections and the decay of its meanings and pronunciation, there is hope. Wherever there is language, there is change and decay, yet language still survives and people will still understand each other. Despite teachers and scholars gnashing their teeth at change, it does happen, but speakers are fully equipped to deal with the changes.

Works Cited

David McKie, Elswhere. “Comment and Debate: Armageddon isn’t upon us: The Meaning of Words is Seeping Away as Our Language Changes. But It’s Not the End of the World.” The Guardian 31 (2006): 32. ProQuest Newsstand. ProQuest Folsom Lake College, EDC, Placerville, Ca. 10/17/2006 <http://proquest.com/>

Deutscher, Guy. The Unfolding of Language. New York: Holt, 2005.

“Resent.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1991.

Trudgill, Peter. “The Meanings of Words Should Not be Allowed to Vary or Change.” Language Myths. Ed. Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill. London: Penguin Books, 1998. 1-8.

At the time of writing this, I was saving to my PC and to my thumb drive, so I’m not sure if this is my final draft or the one just before it, so if there are any mistakes, let me know.

The Director

John Edgar Hoover’s career as Director of the FBI is marked by corruption, political bias and some of the most embarrassing blunders in the history of crime fighting. Hoover would use the manipulation of the media and various scapegoats to cover his own mistakes. Despite this, his career spanned nearly thirty years. One must wonder why this man had so much power that his career spanned seven presidents and sixteen general attorneys. The reason for this is his political mastery. In the book Citizen Hoover by Jay Robert Nash, Nash describes Hoover: “At politics he is a master. No one else in Washington today has managed to clutch high power with such tenacious longevity” (1). Hoover’s political maneuvering kept him in power long after he had served any purpose to the FBI.

Hoover’s rise to power began during the tumultuous year of 1917 when America entered the Great War. Hoover landed a job as a clerk in the overworked Department of Justice. The department’s attention was focused on investigating and deporting immigrants on suspicion of spying. John Lord O’Brian was appointed as assistant to the Attorney General and given a new staff in which Hoover was named unit chief in the enemy alien registration section. As a result, Hoover set out to prove himself. He was credited many times for his tireless effort at rooting out saboteurs and spies.

Another significant event to push Hoover to the head of the ranks was the bombing of the home of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer on June 2, 1919. More bombings ensued with messages left stating such things as “The powers-that-be make no secret of their will to stop here in America the worldwide spread of revolution” (Quoted in Nash 19). Hoover’s prior work as unit chief brought him a new niche in the fight against the “Red Menace.” Because of Hoover’s reputation, General Palmer chose him as the man to be in charge of the General Intelligence Division, later named the Anti-Radical Division. Hoover began his crusade against Communism. Studying the famous Communist works of the day, he developed a fear of a Communist takeover (Nash 19). Hoover would end up playing a very important role ruining the careers of many federal employees and blacklisted writers and actors who were suspected of supporting Communism.

Hoover’s rise to power was complete in the year 1927. Seeped in scandal, the Bureau of Investigation was looking for someone new in charge. It was suggested to the newly appointed Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone that hard-working Hoover be considered for the job. On May 10, 1924, at the age of twenty-nine, Hoover was appointed head of the bureau. Hoover promised Stone that he would keep politics out of the bureau, but in 1932, when the Republicans had been firmly defeated, Hoover replaced more than one hundred agents with men chosen by the new Democratic administration.

Hoover soon took on his most favorite public image, the “Gangbuster.” The director enjoyed the image given to the press, but it was false. He was described by Nash: “When Hoover appeared in public in the early 1930’s, in the opinion of many observers he seemed to be imitating Hollywood film sleuths. He could be seen dining alone in Washington restaurants, his table set apart from others, his back to the wall. At such times, the Director would look ‘about furtively like a G-man’” (36).

This image was false and served only to boost his career and his ego. In fact, the term “G-man” was completely made up by Hoover, who wrote about the origin of this phrase in a story describing the capture of the notorious George “Machine Gun” Kelly in a house in Memphis, Tennessee. Kelly had escaped from Leavenworth Penitentiary and had been running from federal agents for two months. According to Hoover, FBI agents, with help from local law enforcement, surrounded the house. Hoover wrote that when agents entered the house, Kelly trembled in the corner and whimpered, “Don’t shoot, G-men; don’t shoot!”(37). Hoover continued to exaggerate the term to the media. He wrote, “That was the beginning of a new name for FBI agents. By the time Kelly had been convicted and had received his sentence of life imprisonment, the new nickname, an abbreviation of ‘Government Men’ had taken hold throughout the underworld. Along the grapevine of the powerful empire of crime passed the whispered words of warning about the G-men” (37).

In Nash‘s book however, the true story is revealed. First of all, it was only one officer entered the house that held “Machine Gun” Kelly, a local Memphis Police officer named WJ Raney. When Raney entered the house and demanded the criminal drop his weapon, Kelly replied, “I’ve been waiting all night for you” (37). In fact, the phrase never caught on in the criminal underworld. Federal agents are most commonly referred to as “feds” (37).

This was only one example of Hoover boosting his ego and credit through the media and through fanciful tales. He would continue to take credit away from local police departments and other agencies and give it to his FBI agents. One such case involved a famous counterfeiter, Victor “The Count” Lustig. Agents of the Treasury Department had managed to capture Lustig and promptly turn him over to the care of the FBI. The counterfeiter proceeded to escape Hoover’s men in New York. Again the Treasury Department caught up with Lustig and decided to bring him to Pittsburgh. On the way, the FBI overtook the car and took Lustig into their custody. Hoover called the press to announce another FBI victory over the world of crime. Never did he mention the escape of the prisoner in New York or that the Treasury Department had been the agency that found the criminal (Nash 52).

Hoover was not without critics. One skeptic was Senator Kenneth D. McKellar, who confronted Hoover about his record with the FBI when Hoover was seeking a larger budget for his FBI. McKellar hounded Hoover until Hoover conceded that the FBI could not have made certain arrests without tips from citizens whose names were never mention in his press releases. Hoover was even asked if he had made any arrests at all in his career and Hoover could only answer truthfully: no. As a result, to save his reputation as a hard-ball crime fighter, Hoover flew to New Orleans a few weeks later to personally arrest “public enemy number one,” Alvin “Old Creepy” Karpis. In the papers Hoover was portrayed as yanking Karpis out of a car and slamming the cuffs on him. However, the truth is that Hoover waited in an apartment building until the criminal was surrounded by the FBI, at which point the Director walked up to the car and ordered the criminal be cuffed (Nash 57). This was Hoover’s first arrest.

Hoover’s politics kept his image clean in the face of criticism. During the years following the Second World War, Soviet spies had managed to steal atomic bomb secrets from right under the FBI’s nose. Hoover managed to keep his public image clean, but the incident still had an effect. The sting would not last too long, however, as the country stepped into the most paranoid and damaging era of the Cold War.

On February 9, 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy would give his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia that would mark the beginning of massive public slander and ruin for employees of the State department. In his speech the Senator held up a piece of paper and said, “I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party” (Quoted in Johnson 18). There was no such list. The piece of paper in McCarthy’s hand was a four year old letter from former Secretary of State, James Byrnes. Haynes Johnson writes in The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism: “It contained no names, no list, no mention of traitors working within the State Department, nothing about “spy rings,” not any reference to Communist Party membership” (16). Fearful of being accused as Communist or Communist sympathizers and being publicly humiliated by the House Un-American Activities Committee, few people stood up to McCarthy. Hoover had a backer in his obsessive fight against Communism.

Hoover’s involvement with McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee was significant in the fact that most of the information given to slander and ruin the careers of suspected

Communists or Communist sympathizers came from the FBI. According to Haynes: “The History of McCarthyism cannot be told without understanding the critical role Hoover played…Hoover’s part in forming and leading the anticommunist crusade began with his invaluable service to Palmer during the summer of 1919; it continued for more than a half century” (103). According to Nash, the FBI became an “infiltrative organization gathering ‘intelligence,’ which was more likely to compromise, embarrass, and ruin those investigated than merely supply ‘facts’ (Nash 106).

McCarthy’s rein would not last. Senator McCarthy was censured on December 2, 1954. Just two and a half years later, on May 2, 1957, he died of alcoholism at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Hoover’s career, however, remained intact. Nash writes that Hoover claimed the FBI was merely a fact-finding agency that neither evaluated nor analyzed the results of investigations, and that the FBI did not make recommendations as to who was loyal to the American government or not (105). Hoover used political mastery to distance himself from McCarthyism and the hysteria of the Red Menace era to save his career and ensure his future with the FBI.

Hoover’s political maneuvers kept him in favor as the director of the FBI for nearly thirty years. His image portrayed to the public was very useful in securing his position, even though it was almost completely fabricated. Even the major blunders of the FBI could be covered up through the use of the press. Through these tactics, the Director’s career outlasted seven presidents and spanned nearly three decades. No one in any government position in America has had so long a career in such a powerful position, and hopefully never will. Hoover never retired from the FBI. He was found dead of an undiagnosed heart condition on May 2, 1972. He was 71 years old.

Works Cited

Nash, Jay Robert. Citizen Hoover. Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1972.

Johnson, Haynes. The Age of Anxiety: McCarthyism to Terrorism. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt, 2005.

What can the individual do? Obviously, investing in renewable resources is not an option for the average citizen. However, there is many steps people can take to stop the destruction of global warming. Berger has a long list of actions consumers can take to stand up against global warming. Many of these are listed below:

• Buy a fuel efficient car. Berger predicts that 32 miles per gallon rated vehicle will reduce greenhouse gases by as much as 5,600 pounds per year. Another advantage is the money a person can save on gas.

• Turn off lights at home when they are not in use. Program the thermostat to turn off during the hours that no one is home. Use energy saving products, such as shower heads that turn out less water per minute. Berger says these steps eliminate 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide per year.

• Recycle. This has a huge impact on the environment. Processing waste creates huge problems for the environment. Recycling paper, glass and aluminum can reduce emissions by 850 pounds per year.

• Use recycled products. This is very important. Buy from companies that care. Products that use recycled material are doing their job to save the environment.

• Energy-efficient appliances are another way to help. Refrigerators and washing machines are some of the hardest working appliances in the house. Using an outdated machine uses more energy than newer, advanced machines. New models can reduce 700 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.

• Get involved! Vote for candidates that care about the environment. Learn as much as possible on how to create a better world. There are many organizations that can point a person on the right direction. In California, the Sierra Club is an organization that is getting involved. Their website is www.motherlode.sierraclub.org.

These are some of the ways a person can make a difference. However, there needs to be policy changes in government as well, especially the United States. If the US is going to claim the title of the most powerful country in the world, it needs to also be the most responsible. As one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it can show other nations how to wisely convert to renewable resources. Only then will the planet see the threat of global warming fall.

The future doesn’t have to be a gloom-filled, dirty place with millions of people starving and homeless. If action is taken now, humans can prevent this catastrophic event. Skeptics continually argue that there isn’t enough evidence; that policy changes should be put off to an indefinite future, but it seems they will never be satisfied with the evidence that is compiled everyday. Their future date will never come. By the time they are satisfied, it will be too late. Something needs to be done about global warming.

Amman, Caspar, and Gavin Schmidt. “Dummies Guide to the Latest ‘Hockey Stick’ Controversy.” www.Realclimate.org. 18, february 2005. 25 April 2007
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/>.

Bettelheim, Adriel. “Biofuels Boom.” Congressional Quarterly. CQ Researcher. Folsom Lake College, EDC library. 29 Jan. 2007. http//
www.cqresearcher.com>.

Bily, Cynthia A., ed, Global Warming. Opposing Viewpoints Ser. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

Cooper, Mary H. “Global Warming.” Congessional Quarterly. CQ Researcher. Folsom Lake College, EDC Library. 29 Jan. 2007. <http//
www.cqresearcher.com>.

Gribben, John. Future Weather and the Greenhouse Effect. New York: Dell Publishing, 1982.

Leroux, Marcel. Global Warming-Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology. Chichester, UK: Praxiz Publishing, 2005.

McCuen, Gary E, ed. Our Endangered Atmosphere: Global Warming and the Ozone Layer. Hudson, Wisconsin: Gray E, McCuen Publications, 1987.

Michaels, Patrick J., ed. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

Moore, Thomas Gale. Climate of Fear: Why we Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming. Washington DC: Cato Institute, 1998.

It is not too late to take action. The Kyoto protocol was a policy change that would have been a starting point for humans to begin to reverse the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Unfortunately, the US, one of the most polluting nations of the world, did not sign the treaty. The Bush administration parroted the same excuses the oil companies have been declaring for years: it is too expensive to regulate emissions; there is not enough evidence; the evidence is exaggerated; citizens would be the ones paying for this through their taxes. The skeptics want the world to close their eyes to the reality of the situation. Meanwhile, the problem grows.

There are solutions to greenhouse emissions. The technology is available; however, it does cost money to make the transition to cleaner air. The oil industry might be the greatest impacted by a shift in technology. The internal combustion engine is a large factor in greenhouse emission because it burns gasoline that deposits pollution into the air. If automobiles were no longer dependent on gasoline, the prices would drop dramatically and oil companies would fail.

These oil companies want people to think that it is the average citizen that would be affected the most. Their strategy is clear: if they can convince voters that regulating emmisions are more expensive to the economy than global warming, the voters will put politicians in power that will refrain from changing emissions standards, thereby keeping oil companies safe to continue polluting the atmosphere. The oil companies want people to think that lower emissions standards would lower the average citizen’s standard of living. However, the techonology is in place in other countries whose economies are doing very well.

There are many technologies already available. One solution to the internal combustion engine is the use of hydrogen fuel cells. Instead of releasing poison into the atmosphere, as gas-powered vehicles do, the hydrogen powered car works with twice the efficiency and emits only water vapor (Brown 161). The technology is expensive because it is new, but it is improving all the time. During the 1990s prototypes were developed that could drive up to 280 miles on one fueling.

Another way to help prevent global warming would be for the government to start investing more in renewable energy resources and stop paying for power companies to create more coal-burning facilities. Renewable energy resources can provide for a large percentage of the current demand if steps are taken to improve and use these methods.

The falling costs of wind power bring hope. Wind power is generated by huge windmills whose turbines turn in the wind and generate electric power through an alternator. It is estimated that the cost is $.04 per kilowatt hour, about two cents less than conventional methods (Berger 83-84). One drawback to wind power is that wind has to be present to turn the turbines. Even generally windy regions have days where the wind isn’t blowing. Extra energy stores would be required for such times.

The argument against windpower is that it won’t produce enough to support large grids. Although this is true, using wind to supplement our production of energy would greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Every little bit counts in the fight against global warming.

Solar power is another technology that is catching on. Although they may not have the capacity to completely replace other sources, they can provide, for example, “49–80 percent of an ordinary household’s hot water demands, depending on the climate” according to John Berger (87). This would greatly reduce our total dependence on fossil fuels and prevent a large amount of greenhouse gases from polluting the atmosphere. Like windpower, solar energy can’t be distributed throughout large power grids to support the needs of many homes, but on a small scale, solar panels work. Many households, tired of rising energy prices, have installed solar panels on their roofs. This does not solve the problem of global warming, but still makes an impact.

Geothermal energy may also reduce global warming. By tapping into the earth’s natural heat energy below the surface, humans can reduce emissions and save money on their energy bills. The U.S. government could learn a lesson from Iceland, whose majority of heat power comes from geothermal sources.

Iceland and Norway are two countries that have shown that power can be harnessed through renewable sources. Nearly 100 percent of their electricity is from renewable resources such as hydropower (Berger 82). Hydropower is a method of capturing the energy generated by the flow of rivers through the use of turbines. The only negative side effect is that blocking rivers through dams to harness this energy source decreases sediment distribution upstream and prevents salmon from reaching their birthing grounds to spawn. If the US invested more money in geothermal resources and hydropower, people would save money and save our atmosphere. These technologies are already available, it is only a matter of convincing government to invest in them.

Another fuel source that could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is biomass or biofuels such as ethanol. Biomass is natural organic materials, such as residue from sugar and paper production or livestock manure that is burned to create energy (Berger 88-89). Although cleaner than fossil fuels, biomass does still emit carbon into the air. Biomass alone cannot be the only solution to global warming, but it can make a difference.

The only biofuel being manufactured in the US is ethanol, a fuel made from processing corn. Addriel Bettelheim writes that one plant in Illinois is creating 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol each year (sec 1). This fuel can be used for automobiles and other vehicles. Biodiesel is already being used largely in Europe as an alternative to the gas-powered vehicle.

Nuclear power is not listed as a renewable resource because the elements needed to create power are non–renewable and because the waste produced by such a method is radioactive. Disposing of the waste costs money and is very dangerous. The plants are extremely hard to maintain, build and decommission due to the danger involved (Berger 82).

Skeptics and oil companies want people to think that using these technologies will hurt the economy and they will not be sufficent on their own to support the power demands in the US. Alone, none of these technologies is a sufficient answer to global warming. However, combined, there is more than enough of these renewable resources to break the dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels.

Although there have been many different models and predictions about the future effects of global warming, scientists agree that the temperature is going to rise if nothing is done to curb emissions. The effects of this rise will be dolorous. The models have changed over the years and some have been reduced from over-exaggerated numbers, but this can be attributed to the development of better technologies. With these better technologies, it has been predicted that the earth’s temperature will rise between 2-4° F over the next hundred years. Fresh water stored in glaciers will no longer be available if the glaciers melt. Unpredictable weather will destroy agriculture all over the world. As part of a delicate ecosystem, animals will disappear from the globe forever.

Skeptics want people to think that the numbers have changed because of political agendas and a strange need for scientists to create drama. In fact, one scientist claims that humans have some strange desire to blame themselves for every thing that happens in the environment. Leroux sarcastically writes, “It is not complicated- humans are responsible for everything, always, commit all manner of sins, and are capable of anything, even of dictating the weather, a power once reserved for the gods! And now we must pay!” (4). Leroux wants people to believe that climate scientists are only trying to make people feel bad for pollution. But this is not the case. There is a difference between blaming and taking responsibility. Advocates for the environment are trying to get people to help undo the damage that has been done to the planet throughout the industrial age. This isn’t placing blame and making people pay as Leroux would have some believe, this is addressing a global crisis.

In the same book, Leroux admits that pollution is a problem, but states that climate change is a completely separate issue. He says “Let us make one thing clear from the start: there should be no confusion of pollution and climate. Pollution is a serious and urgent enough subject by itself, and would require dealing with separately, by appropriate specialists” (6). Pollution is treated as a separate issue because-well- global warming supposedly doesn’t exist. The abnormally rapid rise in temperature is treated as just another change the earth goes through. What Leroux is failing to disclose is that the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is most commonly known as air-pollution. This pollution is causing climate change. Leroux is trying to blind his readers into desregarding the facts.

Taking any action to curb global warming would unnecessarily affect industries because it is too soon to tell if the damages will be negative enough to cause alarm. However, if no action is taken, by the time these constant skeptics can be convinced, it may be too late. Glaciers are already melting at a rapid rate, ice sheets are falling into the ocean, ecosystems are failing as weather effects habitat and migration of animals. The skeptical scientists are being paid to deny that global warming exists, so as sea levels rise around them and droughts strike the world’s food production, they will continue to be paid off by gross polluters to try and halt policy change regarding air pollution. These skeptics are dangerous to the environment and to future generations. Ice sheets are already falling into the ocean, animal populations are already being affected, droughts are already destroying the lives of millions and natural disasters are already creating millions more dollars in damage each year than in the past.

If the oil industry and their puppet scientists get their way, the earth is only going to get worse. Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 275 parts per million (ppi). It has risen to about 360 ppi. (Karl and Trenberth 54). Reducing these emissions would affect the huge profits that industries such as oil companies are making. As the temperature rises and food production falls, millions more will starve. As the sea levels rise, the coasts will become increasingly uninhabitable. Millions will be relocated as the ocean reclaims the land. Heavy storms will cause trillions of dollars in property damage. Not all areas will be affected in the same way, but all will be affected.

Despite the arguments by the skeptics, there are studies that show that global warming is happening and that it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The main supporting arguments come from studies of the weather and the thickness of Arctic sea ice. The average thickness of the ice sheets over the North Pole is dramatically thinner than thirty years ago. The cause of this is warmer sea water on which the ice sheets float.

Other factors provide evidence for the effects of global warming, such as animal populations. For example, in the essay Global Warming Poses a Serious Threat by Geoffrey Lean, birds told the story of how damaging climate change can be. Lean writes, “We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year [2004], after the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters-and how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystem due to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years” (21). If global warming continues more and more species will be affected. When species become extinct because they can’t find food or shelter, whole ecosystems have the potential to collapse.

Weather has been greatly affected by global warming since the 1970’s. Terrible droughts in the tropics led to a heightened awareness to climate change. In the book Our Endangered Atmosphere, by Gary E. McCuen, essayist Stephen P. Leatherman predicts that if nothing is done to lower emissions, the earth’s surface temperature will rise by 1° C. This essay was written in 1987. Since then scientists have shown that Leatherman’s predictions were correct. The earth’s temperature has risen 1˚. Other predictions that were made in the late 1970’s–80’s have also come true, such as impacts on rainfall and the melting of glaciers.

The rise in the earth’s temperature has had a tremendous impact on the natural stores of freshwater on the earth: glaciers and arctic ice sheets. According to John Berger, author of Beating the Heat, Himalayan glaciers are the fastest receding glaciers so far. They feed the Indus and Ganges Rivers in northern India that provide water for millions of people. This has caused devastating floods and mass wasting events. Other glaciers that have been melting at a rapid pace are those found in Glacier National Park. Eighteen of sixty-five glaciers have completely melted since 1966. Ice covering areas of the Arctic Ocean decreased six percent between 1978 and 1995. Ice sheets are falling into the Antarctic Ocean, causing dangerous icebergs for the shipping industry. Populations of Adelie penguins on the Arctic Peninsula have been reduced by one third of their count from twenty-five years ago. The temperature of their habitat has increased up to 4° F since the 1940’s and even higher in some areas (Berger 35-36).

This evidence is not addressed in books written by skeptics of global warming. In fact, in the book Climate of Fear, Thomas Gale Moore writes, “Warmer periods bring benign rather than more violent weather” (23). Ice sheets falling into the ocean and animal populations dwindling is not very benign. Moore believes that warmer weather would be harmless to the environment, yet he never gives an explanation for the damage that is already being done around the globe.

Moore even goes so far as to say that a period of warming might be beneficial to the planet because of prior periods of warmth. He says, “around 6,000 years ago the earth sustained temperatures that were probably more than 4° Fahrenheit hotter than those of the 20th century, yet mankind flourished” (23). However, the world was a very different place. There were not as many humans and most of the larger civilizations were located in Mediterranean climates that are generally milder than other areas. The rapid rise in temperature has already done damage to places such as the Himalayas, parts of Africa, the North American continent, and the Arctic and Antarctic circles through flood, drought and disease. Mankind may have florished in warmer periods in the past, but there are now over six billion people on this planet that depend on weather for food production and economy.

There are other harmful effects as well. Delicate ecosystems are being greatly affected. Coral reefs are being bleached due to warmer ocean water. Whole ecosystems dependant on the health of the reefs are collapsing. Humans are affected as fish die or migrate due to the destruction of their habitat. Insect and pest populations are wreaking havoc due to global warming. Mosquitoes are thriving in the warmer climates and bringing malaria epidemics to regions of Africa.

These issues are not being addressed by the skeptics. Despite this evidence, they continue to deny global warming. Instead of trying to find an alternative explanation for erratic weather, they concentrate their efforts on trying to prove that the earth’s temperature is not on the rise. When it is finally proven that the earth’s temperature is on the rise, they ignore the facts still and insist that there is no relationship between pollution and this climate change. Even thought the majority of climatologists and earth scientists agree on global warming, the skeptics insist these experts are wrong or over-exaggerating for the sake of politics. When oil companies, electric companies and car manufacturers make up the majority of the opposition to policy change, it seems that it is the skeptics who have more stake in politics than those that are honestly trying to clean up the planet.

It seemed that the skeptics had a point; however, McIntyre and McKitrick’s research has also been criticized for leaving out North American tree ring data from the calculations. According to Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler for NASA, and Caspar Ammann, a climate scientist for the National Center for Atmospheric Researches, leaving North American tree ring data out greatly affects the outcome of the graph. McIntyre and McKitrick’s articles did not show that Mann’s math had been incorrect, but showed that when North American tree ring data was left out, a different graph emerged. The question therefore, was whether or not the data should have been left out. Schmidt and Ammann contend that the data should not have been left out because it changes the validation statistics of the data used (Schmidt and Ammann, 16th paragraph).

Inconsistent Science

Scientists have long related rises in earth’s temperature to rises in CO2, however technology was not always available to prove that a warming of the earth’s surface was occuring. A scientist by the name of Patrick J. Michaels wrote an essay titled Facts Fail to Back Warming Theory in 1987. In it, Michaels writes, “In spite of the current increase in CO2, and despite the headlines, there’s precious little evidence that the Northern Hemisphere has warmed up significantly over the last fifty years” (41). Michaels is admitting that CO2 levels are rising but believes that the levels won’t affect the earth’s temperature. Almost twenty years later, Michaels admits that evidence shows that the earth’s temperature had in fact risen. In his book Shattered Consensus, Michaels quotes a scientist by the name of Robert C. Balling Jr. saying, “The evidence is overwhelming that the near-surface air temperatures have increased in the past three decades” (68). Michaels is admitting that there is evidence available that the earth is warming and yet his book sets out to prove that global warming doesn’t exist. His major point in 1987 was that there was no evidence of temperatures rising regardless of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Although this major point has been invalidated, and Michaels admits the earth is getting hotter, he still insists global warming has nothing to do with human activities or CO2.

Ethical Dilema: Can a Climate Scientist Gather Data Without Bias While Being Funded by Oil Companies?

One more thing a researcher has to keep in mind: many of the skeptics have their own political bias. In the book Beating the Heat, by John J. Berger, an explanation is given for the rise in skeptics of global warming. In explaining why oil, gas, auto, and other fossil-fuel dependent industries so strongly oppose the evidence of global warming, Berger writes, “Since they profit directly from the production and use of carbon based fuels, they do not want fuel sales reduced…They take an equally dim view of stronger clean air standards. Air pollution regulations impose pollution control costs on fossil fuel polluters” (60). Naomi Oreskes, a professor at the University of California, San Diego writes in Science Magazine that “Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in science” (qtd. in Berger, 38). If emissions regulations were imposed oil companies would have to spend money to update their facilities. If they can somehow get policy makers to believe there is no such thing as global warming and emissions regulations are not needed, they can continue to make the enormous profits they are making today.

Robert C. Balling admits the earth’s surface temperatures are rising, yet disregards this warming trend by saying that the lower troposphere is not warming significantly. He proposes that if greenhouse gases were causing global warming the troposphere (the area of the atmosphere 7-10 miles from the earth’s surface) would be warming at a rate consistent with the surface (68). However, he does not give an explanation of the warming trend on the Earth’s surface or for the inconsistency between the surface and the troposphere. He cannot prove that surface temperatures and temperatures in the troposphere must be consistent in order for global warming to exist.

Another significant fact about Balling’s inadequate research is the fact that it is funded by coal and oil companies, including Exxon Mobil. Balling has received upwards of $300,000 for his research (Berger 62). The oil companies will be greatly affected financially if the US passes stricter regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and so are against any research that proves global warming is a serious threat. It is an ethical question whether or not Balling can provide unbiased research while being paid by a biased industry.

Patrick J. Michaels, the editor of Shattered Consensus, also has a reason for opposing policy change for global warming. Sixteen percent of the funding for his research comes from the coal industry. Michaels argues that this does not make him bias, but he has admitted to receiving $210,000 from coal companies for his research (Cooper sec 5). He would be doing himself a diservice if his research argued against the people paying his salary. The oil companies don’t pay scientists that declare global warming to be a real threat and that recommend policy change to reduce emissions.

The skeptics cannot gather clear, unbiased research regarding global warming. They constantly deny global warming and attribute the evidence to nature. Although more and more evidence is published by the majority of scientists regarding the relationship between CO2 and global warming, the skeptics hold fast to their position. The reason that some of the skeptics find it so important to deny global warming is simple: their research is being funded by oil companies, the very people that are making the most money by selling fossil-fuels as a source of energy.

While the majority of climate scientists agree that the earth’s atmosphere is heating up and the heating is a result of human industrial impact, there are skeptics who try to disprove global warming. The skeptics of global warming do not believe that policy change regarding pollution is necessary. Some believe that climate change is a completely natural occurrence and that human industrial activity has nothing to do at all with the rise in the earth’s temperature. Others argue that although there may be a rise in temperature, it is being over-exaggerated by the advocates of policy change. Some argue that a warming in the Earth’s temperature will be beneficial to mankind.

Argument 1: Global Warming is not caused by Humans

In the book, Climate of Fear by Thomas Gale Moore, the argument that climate change is not a human related occurrence is presented. He also argues that, although an increase in greenhouse gases will affect the climate, the result will not have a negative impact on human beings. Therefore, he believes policy change is not necessary.

One warning that scientists have about global warming is that melting ice caps will raise sea levels. Moore argues that “Any rise in sea levels will be small; the levels may even drop. Accordingly, even though the oceans may warm marginally and thus expand, increased precipitation and especially snowfall in Antarctica will add to the amount of water trapped in glaciers and perhaps lead to a net fall in water levels” (14). In other words, he is saying that if rainfall increases due to global warming there will not be a melting of glaciers or a rise in sea level because increased precipitation will actually cause the sea level to fall as more water is trapped in glaciers. However, he does not address the fact that glaciers are already disapearing and the north pole is losing its ice sheets at a rapid rate due to melting.

Even though climate change has already affected the Sahel and other areas around the world, there are still those that argue that global warming is not an issue that requires lowering emission standards for polluting industries.

Argument 2: Predictions Regarding Earth’s Temperatures and the Effects of Global Warming are Over-Exaggerated

One researcher by the name of Stephen McIntire believes that the rise in the earth’s temperature over the past 100 years is a result of natural climate cycles of the earth, and that scientists are wrong about how much the earth has warmed over the past 100 years. McIntyre began studying a famous hockey stick graph (so called for its shape, below) that was used in a report titled Summary for Policymakers, 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC is a panel of scientists and government representatives that have been studying and reporting evidence of global warming and climate change for many years. The 2001 report suggests policy change for industrialized countries to reduce the effects of global warming. The graph showed that during the last century the earth’s temperature had risen higher than it had since 1400 AD.

The graph was originally the result of calculations from an article called MBH98 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes that proposed a new way of calculating the earth’s temperature as far back as 1400 AD using data from tree rings and glaciers. Using this method, the authors calculated that over the last one-hundred years, the earth’s temperature had risen faster and higher than any other period from 1400 to present. As a follow-up to this article a year later Mann, Bradley and Hughes published MBH99 which included the graph below. The data they gathered using tree rings and glaciers ultimately showed a rising trend in the earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.

MBH99 “Hockey Stick Graph” by Mann et. al.

Based on the hockey-stick graph, evidence showed that the earth was warming at a rate higher than any previous time since the 1400’s. McIntyre claims to have proven that the data used to support the graph was wrong and that the earth’s temperature had risen higher than today’s temperatures during the Renaissance period without the help of carbon emissions, therefore, today’s rise in temperature is natural and not related to carbon dioxide.

An essay by Ross McKitrick tells the story of how Stephen McIntyre decided to take it upon himself to investigate the data that led to the hockey stick curve of the graph. McIntyre believed that by using the proposed method in MBH98, he could duplicate the MBH99 hockey stick graph. Ross writes, “So instead of simply trying to plot up the proxy data and see what it looked like, Steve decided to do something much more ambitious. He decided to verify MBH98 by replicating its calculations” (Michaels 23). Ross insists that McIntyre’s intention was not to disprove the hockey-stick graph, but to duplicate it using the data provided by Mann. However, there were disputes between Mann and McIntyre over the data that Mann provided. McIntyre believed there were inconsistencies in the data used for the original graph and in Mann’s explanation of the graph. McIntyre claimed to have found variables that were incorrect in Mann’s calculations.

McIntyre recalculated the math with data he himself had gathered, and a new graph emerged. McIntyre’s graph showed that there had been a spike in the earth’s temperature during the Renaissance period that was even higher than today’s rise (40). The scientist concluded that because this rise in temperature had occurred before the introduction of excess carbon dioxide the current rise in temperature might also be a natural phenomenon. McKitrick and McIntyre concluded that if the evidence in MBH99 was wrong, policy change was not necessary to slow global warming. They continue writing articles about McIntyre’s conclusions.

This was devastating to the IPCC Summary for Policy Change. MBH98 was essential to proving that greenhouse gases emitted by human beings were causing the atmosphere to warm at a rapid rate. If there had been a rise in temperature in the fifteenth century, before the introduction of emissions, than the warming of the last century might not be related to human activities. Therefore, policy change regarding global warming would be a waste of time and money.