A surprising letter in The Canberra Times print edition of Saturday 4 July:
I thank Matt Andrews, of Aranda, for sharing with the people of Canberra his great wealth of knowledge concerning climate change.
It is clear to readers of his authoritative letters that he is a detached academic with many letters after his name, unlike those who simply regurgitate read material or merely express an opinion.
Along with Crispin Hull I feel for him on his nightly agonising about those exploiting scientific illiterates who disapprove of current climate science.
Bob Edwards, Kambah
Well, my thanks go out to Bob Edwards for this unexpected praise.
However, I should point out that I’m neither an academic nor do I have any letters after my name… I’m just an interested bystander. I’d dearly like to devote my time to the study and practice of climate science, but for now I’m merely a humble web developer with an occasional bee in the bonnet.
An amusing follow-up letter arrived in the Tuesday 7 July print edition:
Bob Edwards (Letters, July 4) condemns himself and proves a point that climate scientists (the sceptical ones) keep trying to make. When he pours adulation on to Matt Andrews (and Crispin Hull) for their alarmist views on climate change and then uses derogatory language to belittle and ridicule those with another view, he is not contributing to the debate but defending religious dogma.
Aert Driessen, McKellar
Fairly standard denier tactics: try to frame the mainstream science as “alarmist” (or “religion”) and to give the impression that there are two substantial sides to the scientific debate. Sadly this perception is a long, long way from where the science actually is.
Given the strength of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming in general, this is now essentially the same as a tobacco lobbyist describing the suggestion that cigarettes cause cancer as “alarmist”, or an anti-vaccination crusader damning the conclusion that vaccination can be effective against disease as “religious dogma”.