An Example of Climate Obstruction

Every so often I stumble across a paper that makes me want to bang my head on the desk. Recently it was an article pushed to me via Academia.edu from the IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science titled “An Analysis of the Language Used to Communicate Information on Climate Change.”

At first glance, it sounded promising. I've been working in what social scientists call Climate Obstruction: the spread of disinformation by corporations with a vested interest in delaying action on Climate Change. I thought this might be an interesting new paper on the topic. Instead it was an excellent example of Climate Obstruction.

Big Claims, No Evidence

The author argues that climate scientists in developed nations deliberately use jargon to act as “gatekeepers of knowledge” and keep Africans in the dark. That’s quite an accusation — but it comes with no data, no citations, and no attempt to show how such gatekeeping actually happens. It’s just asserted as fact.

This pattern repeats throughout the article. Sweeping claims are made about “scientists imposing technical language” or “ordinary people being unwilling audiences,” without a shred of evidence beyond the author’s personal opinion.

Misunderstanding How Science Works

One of the stranger arguments is that scientists use words like may, likely, or sometimes to dodge responsibility. In reality, those words are called “hedges,” and they’re central to scientific honesty. Climate projections involve uncertainty — pretending otherwise would be misleading. Saying “Cape Town may be flooded in 50 years” isn’t a trick, it’s transparency.

Metaphors Gone Wild

The paper also takes issue with metaphors like greenhouse effect and carbon footprint, analyzing them as if readers are supposed to take them literally. “How green is the greenhouse?” the author asks. “Carbon footprints” are criticized for evoking bare feet in the sand. This kind of nitpicking misses the point entirely. Metaphors are tools for explaining complex ideas — nobody thinks greenhouse gases are literally green. Indeed, some linguists such as Georg Lakoff at UC Berkeley argue that metaphors are a core concept of effective communications [1].

The Writing Doesn’t Help

On top of everything else, the prose itself is confusing and often ungrammatical. Key sentences collapse under their own weight, making it hard to even follow the argument. That might sound like a cheap shot, but when you’re critiquing other people’s language use, clarity is kind of essential.

The One Kernel of Truth

To be fair, there is one useful idea buried in the article: climate communication does need to be more accessible. Jargon can alienate audiences, and translating key ideas into indigenous languages could help. That’s a real issue, and serious researchers in climate communication have written extensively about it.

But this paper doesn’t build on that work. Instead, it uses buzzwords like “Critical Discourse Analysis” without actually doing the hard work of analysis. What could have been a meaningful contribution ends up reading like a long opinion piece dressed up in academic clothes.

Why This Matters

When I looked into the journal that this article was published in:  Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), I realized there is good evidence that it is a predatory journal. The publisher: IOSR is included in Beall's List of Potential Predatory journals. According to one author:

I strongly warn you [not] to publish anything in IOSR Journals. They are not doing any real reviews, but take the money from the authors. Publishing there is not worth anything. They are also supporting serious plagiarism, as I experienced by myself.

After reading that I thought why bother? It seemed kind of like refuting the claims in a video by Jordan Peterson. One could spend their entire career refuting all the nonsense people such as Peterson spew forth. But the difference is that Peterson doesn't publish in journals so his work is clearly (very bad) "pop" psychology. This paper shows how predatory journals can give the veneer of academic respectability without true peer review. To end on a more positive note, I'm including some excellent references to work on Climate Obstruction that I recommend.

[1]	G. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
[2]	R. J. Brulle, "Advocating inaction: a historical analysis of the Global Climate Coalition," Environmental Politics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 185-206, 11 Apr 2022.
[3]	R. J. Brulle, J. T. Roberts, M. C. Spencer and et.al., Climate Obstruction Across Europe, R. J. Brulle, J. T. Roberts and M. C. Spencer, Eds., New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2024. https://cssn.org/news-research/europe-volume/
[4]	G. Hall, L. Loy, R. J. Brulle, K. Schell-Smith, M.-M. Hu and S. Trollback, "Where ideology meets private interest: the three-part composition of climate obstruction in the United States," Environ. Res. Commun., vol. 6, no. 081003, 2024.
[5]	Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway (2010) — Merchants of Doubt. Classic account of how corporations manufactured climate denial.
[6]	Michael E. Mann (2021) — The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. Explains how fossil fuel interests shifted from outright denial to distraction and blame-shifting.