 Next up is Nick Boldovic from the Crawford School of Public Policy in the ANU College of Asia in the Pacific, and the title for Nick's three-minute thesis is Do You See What I See? I was once having a climate change conversation and at the time past Nick was talking about the science and evidence as that's what I thought would convince someone, but it didn't convince them. Where at the beginning we began the conversation as two people with opposing views, we ended the same way, but now we were even further apart. You see, in Australia our climate attitudes sometimes sit really far apart, and we're second only to the US in how divided we are on climate along political lines. This is a challenging context, especially when climate communication has been recognised as a key element to building social support for climate policy and action. Evidence shows climate conversations can enhance pro-environmental attitudes, so we need to be having them, but how do we have them productively and prevent people further drifting apart in their views? My PhD research sets out to answer this question, but first let's briefly analyse why past Nick wasn't so effective in his communication. I was focusing on one part of climate change, and I honed in on the science and evidence as that's what I saw as important, but what I did unknowingly was construct a communication frame that focused on the science. Just like you see here, climate change can look different depending on what frame you're looking through. One frame might emphasise the public health impacts and the other potential economic benefits. There are plenty of others and they can all be used to communicate about climate, but not all of them are effective. I wanted to find out why and understand how we could use frames to improve communication. So I conducted a huge systematic review, looking through around 10,000 articles, I created a public database that maps what we do and don't know about climate communication frames. I found that a common way frames are used are as tools of persuasion, where the goal is to simply match the right frame with the right audience and hope it convinces them. We don't know much about how frames operate in conversation. Maybe it's no surprise my prior conversation failed. So I've constructed a new model based on the latest theory and evidence as well as in-depth interviews with communicators. It shows how frames can be used to open up and sustain a conversation and that the key to a productive climate conversation is understanding the other person's frame and adjusting your own to keep the conversation going. My goal is to demonstrate how even in Australia where our attitudes have polarised, we can shift to more productive communication and my framing model could help us have better conversations that we need to solve climate change. So next time climate comes up in your conversation, don't be like past Nick, think deeply about what frame your words are building and ask yourself, do they see the same frame that I see? Thank you.