Analyzing Message in Geoengineering

From analyzing nearly anything in context from any topic, a person can find out a message that is being conveyed from a source. Deducing from motives and ideas of a source can help a reader construct a possible message that the author has embedded in his words.

Kraftwerck. "Message in a bottle." 10/23/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

The student textbook, Student's Guide, helps writers and readers alike find the message and purpose of a source. The following questions, and my provided answers, are from the text on pages 180 to 181.

1. Out of all the bullet points listed for "Message and Purpose" on page 181, which two or three seem most relevant to the goals of your text's authors? Why?

David Keith, a climate scientist advocating for geoengineering, is the main "author" behind the article. I put author in quotes because the article was formatted and published by Brad Plumer of The Washington Post.

Keith highlights his ideas and opinions, gives his interpretation of the topic, and informs readers about why the topic is misunderstood. He is a supporter of what he calls, solar engineering; his ideas and opinions reflect his advocacy of the methods used. Keith interprets to the best of his ability to potential readers the basics of solar engineering. He attempts to persuade audiences that the process of cooling the Earth will be effective in the long run. Lastly, Keith, through the use of interpretation and the use of his ideas, gives factual information and his own opinions to create a clear view on a very misunderstood topic.

2. Which bullet points do NOT seem relevant to the goals of your text's authors? Why not?

The bullet point in the list that is not relevant to this text is that the author does not give any notion that he or the person he is interviewing is responding to a particular occasion. The situation is more of a widespread thought on the matter of geoengineering and how it has become controversial in its use.

3. Are there nuances and layers to the message the authors / speakers are trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

There appear to be no nuances in the author's message to readers. The author and the person he is interviewer present clear messages as to what they want to convey to their audience. The author is an unbiased interviewer who only seeks the opinions and ideas behind the person he is interviewing. David Keith, the man being interviewed, is a biased climate scientist advocating geoengineering. He does present both sides of the argument however and is not ignorant of the consequences of the methods presented by geoengineering facilitators.