Skeptics, Alarmists, and Scientists OH MY... A Voice Analysis.

“Should we spend a trillion dollars on space lasers in case of an alien invasion of Earth? Why not, its a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.”

This bold statement was taken from Climate Skeptic. The blog name says it all. This is an environmental blog from the vantage point of a man on the fringe, a climate change skeptic. Climate Skeptic is written by Warren Meyer, who, in his ‘about’ section describes himself in the third person, as if he was not writing the ‘about’ section pertaining to himself. Right off the bat, his voice comes through. He lays out all of his credentials in a simple listed paragraph. He uses his own achievements as a jump off point for his perceived authority on the subject. This gives him an air of arrogance and self-righteousness; however, these characteristics are somewhat subdued in his blog posts, by his use of strong evidence to support his thoughts. . Even just reading a few posts made me reconsider my stance on climate change

The first post I decided to comment on was: Just When I Thought I Had Seen the Worst Possible Peer-Reviewed Climate Work… The title itself is a statement of his voice. This title shows a small part of his voice as a blogger. The use of both irony and sarcasm in the title when referring to his peers, illustrates his perceived separation. He views himself as an objective outsider who is the only one in command of the truth. What I want to call attention to is his use of the ellipse at the end. It really gives a sense that he is sighing, fed up with reviewing poor science. Which leads me to believe that he sees himself as a true scientist, one of the last who follow the governance of the scientific method, the only infallible system to confirm empirical observations.

His discontented view of science is evident in his first sentence where he writes, “Some crazy-bad science” He is referring to the peer-reviewed article from the title. Using such an informal statement, for such an academic, seems almost out of place. His use of the same part of speech separated by a hyphen is a common theme throughout this post. He goes onto to write, “one’s suspicion-meter is certainly triggered…” The use of this device works to compound the words giving them a more poignant disposition, making them much more descriptive than they would have been standing alone. His departure from formal proper English, I believe, shows his true feelings about bad science. He is sodisheartened by the accuracy of this study that he feels that the best way to exemplify his feelings is by combining words that make up different thoughts and emotions.

Two of the most common literary devices he uses throughout all of his posts are sarcasm and irony. He uses it as a way to separate himself from the rest of the academic community whom he has lost faith in. It also demonstrates his feeling of isolation within this community. He writes phrases like, “flying in the face of broader yield data … found this amazing approach … how asymmetrical peer review is in climate.” All of these phrases are referring to shortcomings of the peer-reviewed study. They all show his blatant disregard for climate alarmist science. Using the sarcastic metaphor “flying in the face” he conjures an image of something that could have been clearly avoided. “Amazing approach” is a purely sarcastic statement that ridicules the author of the study, by giving sarcastic praise. His use of the word “asymmetrical” when referring to his peers is a play on words. It’s scientific meaning, lopsided or irregular, is used to refer to the views of his peers. Generally his voice is one of a cynic. He uses language to satirize both the views his peers and the science they practice.

The second post I reviewed was entitled Great Academics Go Along With The Pack.

Again, he uses a strong title to project his feelings of isolation from “The Pack.” Using the pack as a metaphor for the science community, in a way, shows a longing to return but not at the price of giving up his ideals. This article discusses the difficulties facing an academic that is not a member of a pack. Generally he focuses on the funding aspect of skeptics vs. alarmists. He uses words like “vilifying skeptics” to make skeptics out to be the victim of this system. The current system in his opinion, rewards those who follow the money. He always uses the word “alarmist” to describe climate change scientists. Giving them a more antagonistic personality, somewhat like the boy who cried wolf.

In probably his strongest statement he writes, “If I really had to discuss incentives, I would argue that prestige and wanting to belong are actually stronger motivations for alarmist scientists, as preaching doom seems to lead to fame while being a skeptic seems to lead to academic shunning.” I believe that this one sentence truly embodies all of his thoughts, fears, and feelings regarding the science community. By using “preaching doom” he uses religious imagery to paint the pack as a fundamentalist religious group. Much the same way, he believes, scientists view skeptics. He feels betrayed, because the alarmists have been lured away from truth by money and a sense of belonging. While he is left to be shunned, alone, just because he stuck to his guns. 


Sincerely,


That Guy