Clive Hamilton and the Global Change Institute: It’s all in your head

4 thoughts on “Clive Hamilton and the Global Change Institute: It’s all in your head”

  1. Thanks for the report and your insights. The observation on how effective the “confusionists” have been is true. They now have so many websites they’re can scramble and spin new science developments in real time. And once one of them does that, the link is immediately forwarded to hundreds of empty-headed political sites.

    I have a long perspective on the issue and that helps me debunk claims and red-herring arguements.
    Here is a book by a historian-physicist that can help you do the same. It is the story of the many stops, starts and sidetracks to understanding global warming. It is available free online, with a nice search-engine.

    by Dr Spencer R. Weart

    It is well worth owning in paperback.


  2. It is true that Alicia did like to argue just for the heck of it when she was at school and as such was an excellent debator, but I don’t believe there is any room for that in this field and as a scientist the evidence must point to the truth. Keep up the good work Alicia and maintain your focus and the truth will come. There is a lot of misinformation on this subject and there is a large amount of the public opinion still waiting for this truth and clarity on what is proving to be a very complicated and intertrwined subject. Love Dad.


  3. Nice sharing from a younger generation like you, it is very touching, indeed.

    I think it is us,scientists, to produce those “climate skeptics” and “denialists”! We can not deny it!

    Take coral reef research as an example, some researchers working on the issue of response to heat-stress induced bleaching and symbiont diversity are very very careful in addressing the question how hosting a heat-resistant symbiont clade can help coral holobionts to acclimatise or even adapt to the rising temperature. Ove is the leader of this camp, I believe. That is, before we can unlock the mystery of coral-symbiosis relationship, which we still dont know most of it! We have to be very careful in conclude what we are doing, and transform information to the public. I believe this is why and how Climate Change Institute is established in UQ— transform “scientific language” to “public language” for the public! Give them right “information”, not “answer”!

    So, since rising SST and climate change is a “hot” issue in this field, it is a way to attract attention, or catch the spotlight of media by putting “bold” prediction in the research articles. Some depth transplantation study of corals showed light effect, but using good English writing skill to link to thermal stress and therefore implications for climate change. Some articles based on study of ONE coral species, then come to a statement like this, ” heat-resistant Symbiodinium clade can give coral hosts 1-1.5C degree of thermal tolerant increase. This is an ecological significance to MANY coral species in the absence of other mechanism of acclimatisation or adaptation. However, it may not be sufficient to survive climate change under predicted sea surface temperature scenarios over the next 100 years, but it may be enough to ‘buy time’ while CO2 reduction measures are put in place.” This kind of title and conclusion is very sexy and attractive! However, if you are “climate skeptics” and “denialists”, when you saw these articles, what will you do? If you are general public outside the coral research field but do care about the GBR’s future, what will you think? believe it or not, some of these scientific articles will be/ or might have been used as “scientific evidence” in the public hearings in United States congress or Australian parliament for the debate of CO2 emission reduction or climate change to support the view of skeptics.

    I have to say that I have NO intention to say good or bad for peoples’ research work, all of them are great! however, by saying something “overstated” can get the attention of scientific community, but it is going to mislead the public taxpayers who just need some simple, quick, and clear “information” to their puzzle of climate change. In return, this kind of stress is back to people like Ove who has a public attraction, insists his good science, and passion to his beloved coral reefs, WASTES his time to explain and fight to those skeptics! It wastes time to do it, but he must do it. I think that is the reason why he is still not finishing his review paper-:)

    You are asking who will step up to the platform and provide the missing link—- the answer is very clear to me, as an overseas observer to this blog, you people in the Climate Change Institute and Coral Reef Ecosystem lab! The good old day of living in the ivory tower to do whatever science you like is over! You got to learn the communication skill, know what media want, etc. This is what traditional science did not teach scientist! But we have to learn if you want to do something about it. This is the concept of “Dr. of Earth”. You will one of the PhD Drs to help treat this sick planet. The young generation like you should look into what your director have been trying so hard in the last 20 years!


  4. Thanks everyone for these informative and insightful comments. I hope I can be “Dr of Earth” one day soon and I will make sure effective communication is one of my traits!


Leave a Reply to Paul Crawley Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s