Comments on: Is the CIS to blame for Australian greenhouse policy?

By: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Guy Pearse’s greenhouse conspiracy theory, the Labor version

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:43:06 +0000

[...] think-tanks. Pearse’s imagination was running so wild on the CIS’s role that I was incorporated into the conspiracy, despite my silence on the [...]

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:25:10 +0000

I was not questioning Hamilton’s competency or looking for a conspiracy.

I simply want to know how a person who is not an academic, who does not teach or appear to contribute academically to the ANU in any way, shape or form (other than renting office space there) is permitted to supervise an academic thesis at the ANU. That was what I meant when I said “qualified”.

There are presumably several people at the IPA and the CIS who have PhDs. If the CIS was to move from Sydney to Canberra and rent space at the ANU, would that automatically mean that its employees could supervise ANU PhD students (assuming they themselves had PhDs in the relevant field)?

My guess is that they would not, but I don’t know the answer to this question because I am unfamiliar with the ANU’s PhD supervision rules.

It just strikes me as being a bit unusual - that is all I am saying.

By: Dave Bath

Dave Bath — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:49:38 +0000

Andrew, You’re right. Why pick on you? You’re statement seems equivalent to “Even if I didn’t like chocolate, it’s still a good idea to have it in your pack when hiking through snow”.

Of all the righties around, even at the CIS, from this lefties view you’re probably one of the most reasoning, evidence-driven and straight-talking of the bunch, whereas the climate cabal he talks about seems to have less honorable motives (and I do think there’s some form of short-term self-interested machinations going on).

You’re certainly not like some IPA types, who when I read them, make me think “they can’t really believe that, surely?”. Those guys, in a conspiracy, I could believe.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:11:37 +0000

Thanks David. I didn’t know the ins and outs of PhD supervision.

I don’t think we should be too harsh on Pearse - it’s not like he was in the YOUNG Libs.

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:08:01 +0000

Jeremy wrote:
If you are right, then we come back to Richard’s question: how does Hamilton qualify as a PhD supervisor if all he is doing is renting space at the Uni?
You don’t necessarily have to be an employee to be a supervisor - you just have to be qualified. It may well be a bit of quid pro quo that helps both organisations - I have no idea. I do know trying to tie the ANU to some partisan political idea that Pearse’s observations are necessarily evil. Andrew pointed out they are flawed - turncoats seldom make half measures (it doesn’t make much of a story if they do). Either way, I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could kick him, given the company he used to keep

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:11:36 +0000

“a lot of the stronger evidence of excessive influence…”

Andrew, what do you mean by ‘excessive’? I suspect that, for Hamilton and Pearse, it means ‘more than I would like’.

David,

If you are right, then we come back to Richard’s question: how does Hamilton qualify as a PhD supervisor if all he is doing is renting space at the Uni?

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:20:35 +0000

Richard wrote:
The links between the Australia Institute and the ANU seem to be a bit strange or at least not fully transparent.
Go looking for a conspiracy and likely you’ll find one I expect.
The simpler explanation is that the ANU merely rent out offices to the TAI in the same way most universities rent out corners of space here and there. Tthe organisation I work for certainly does that, but the University has no special interest in our work other than as an extra bit of funding. The convenience is all on our side as some of the contracted services we require are here.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:03:59 +0000

Richard - I’m no fan of Hamilton’s worldview, but he’s perfectly competent to co-supervise work like this - he has a PhD himself, has published in the field, and is a player in public debate, which the thesis is about.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 05:26:00 +0000

How exactly does Hamilton qualify as a PhD thesis supervisor of an ANU student? Does he currently lecture any classes at the ANU? Does he hold an official academic position there?

The links between the Australia Institute and the ANU seem to be a bit strange or at least not fully transparent.

If you search the ANU Staff Directory for Hamilton, his address comes up as “The Australia Institute”. TAI is physically located on the ANU campus, but does that actually mean it is part of the ANU? If so, is it funded by the ANU, and to what extent? None of this information seems to be available on the TAI website or the ANU website.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:19:20 +0000

Jeremy - I have not read enough of the books to know in which ways they differ and how much of Hamilton is drawn from Pearse - but a lot of the stronger evidence of excessive influence comes from the interviews Pearse did with members of the anti-greenhouse lobby. Hamilton has, however, been doing climate change work for many years (presumably why he was a co-supervisor for Pearse) so his book flows naturally from that.

I don’t have enough evidence to make any criticisms of Hamilton, though it is certainly bad luck for Pearse that he has written a similar book. Hamilton’s book was out first, Hamilton is a strong brand, and and Hamilton’s book is shorter - perhaps not quite three strikes and you’re out, but not good for sales.