Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Why Climate Engineering Won't Work"

Jastrow. "Aristotle Altemps"
11/11/2006 via Wikipedia.
Public Domain License.

“Wit is educated insolence.”  --Aristotle

I included this quote for two purposes: 1) to honor Aristotle who categorized the rhetorical strategies

of ethos, pathos, and logos, and 2) to comment on the way in which the author of my article seems to present himself in regards to the topic.

Ethos

In Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work, Anders Levermann employs a scientific talk that serves to impress the audience.  He explains the science in simple terms, but also uses the engineering language to establish that he has knowledge on the topic and therefore authority to voice his opinion.  The audience is then inclined to believe his message, especially since many of them have little knowledge on the subject themselves and are forced to just accept what the author is saying as fact. 

Levermann uses a condescending tone when speaking of climate engineering, such as “If we don't want to screw up our climate…” and so forth.  This strategy is used to make him sound as though he were above Crutzen and the people working with this engineering, and thus he has the authority to judge whether or not this technique will be effective.  Depending on if the audience feels threatened by this condescending tone, they will either feel more pressure to believe him or think that he is resorting to insults because his facts are not strong enough to support his argument.

Anders Levermann uses his reputation and his expertise to his advantage.  He has over 800 followers on Twitter in which he posts about climate change daily.  The link to his twitter is included at the bottom of the article, as well as a mini bio about himself where information is provided about his job as a professor of Physics in Germany.  All this makes a great claim for Levermann, showing that he has the proper resources and knowledge to speak with authority on this topic.  The audience is led to trust this man that the facts he points out are credible and true.

Throughout the article, Levermann constantly addresses the counterarguments.  He starts by presenting what others believe about climate engineering, and then explains why this idea is flawed.  The body of his writing is structured in this way.  Although this adds to his credibility, it does little for the readers since the majority of them do not have the knowledge to be making counterarguments of their own.

All these strategies help for making an effective argument, as the audience feels that they can fully trust the author, even if he does come across as harsh and insolent.  Levermann is obviously very biased against climate engineering, but his focus on facts seems to draw away from this point.

Pathos

Right from the get-go, Levermann reminds the reader of two popular news items regarding the effects of climate change in the world.  Whether or not people have personal connections to the California drought or the Vanuatu typhoon, the events still remind readers of the heartache and difficulties experienced.  The author has now given the audience a reason to care about the situation at hand, and thus a reason to be invested.

Levermann continuously plays on the word “simple.”  Since this is a scientific problem, the reader believes that the arguments will be confusing or difficult to understand.  Levermann tries to get his reader to believe that the argument is “simple” and that the flaws are “fundamental.”  The audience is led to think that if this problem is so simple, then it shouldn’t be that be that hard to accept what the author is writing.

Although technical, Levermann employs a very informal speech to talk with his readers.  His annoyance and anger towards climate engineering is overt and comes across as very relatable to the audience.  This helps the audience to problem, presenting the issue on a more “human” level rather than the distant, unbiased scientific language that scientists often have to use.  However, his informality also makes him sound like he is complaining and annoyed, which might turn the reader away from what he has to say.

Altogether, these pieces make the message relatable and important to the general public.  On the other hand, the pathos makes the message feel as though it is childish since the author seems annoyed with the almost stupidity of those who desire climate engineering.  In addition, the informality draws away from his credibility since he no longer sounds like a scientist but a regular angered human being.

Logos

Levermann relies on Logos in the body of his text.  He uses facts and statistics that back up why he believes climate engineering is ineffective.  He infers that these statistics are accepted among the physicist community but does not reference or site any other names of professionals.  The author wants the reader to feel that the proof is in the facts and needs no other form of persuasion.  Given that this is a science based article, it is very effective since the audience is coming into the article expecting facts and proof backed by science.

Anders Levermann also puts a lot of thought into the structure of his paper.  The organization allows the reader to grasp the message of the article even if they don’t understand the science behind it.  The sentences use simple language to help the reader follow the logic of the argument.  The author continually states the message of the article that climate engineering is flawed so that the reader doesn’t feel lost in the “science” of it all.  This strategy is once again effective as the reader would quickly give up on the article if they ever felt overwhelmed by argument that was being presented.


Reflection:

After reading Chris Bohlman's post and Stef Antonopoulos' post, I realized that it can be really helpful to include quotes that back up your claims, especially so that in the future you can reference specific parts of your article.  I also noticed that you can take the analysis a step further by telling what the effect would have been if the author did (or didn't do) x, y, or z.

I feel my analysis was very comprehensive and just as developed as my peers.  By answering each of the questions for each of the strategies individually, I included what the effect of the parts were as well as what the effect of the whole was.  I felt that even though my analysis was organized differently than those of my peers, the information was still the same and still thoroughly evaluated the effectiveness of the rhetorical strategies.