Frank Smead in 'Run for the hills” (30 July) accuses me of not reading his last letter carefully or providing proof of anthropogenic climate change. In fact I find the proof in the multitude of peer reviewed papers written by the scientists themselves, their lectures and from discussions with them. I have actually read all Mr Smead's letters many times and still can not see where science enters into them. Does his proof that it is all 'a myth” and 'skulduggery” come from 'The Bard” himself? I am also convinced he does not read my own letters properly or he would see I am already well aware of the 'irrefutable proof of the natural changes . . over millions of years” etc. Does he still not realise that this basic knowledge underlies climate scientists' understanding of how unstable the climate can become? Or that it is now behaving in a way that can not be fully explained by the natural processes occurring in the past?

He should have observed in my letter of 16 July that I was actually quoting from Gareth Morgan's and John McCrystal's unbiased book 'Poles Apart” when I stated 'The science is practically irrefutable. The evidence isn't overwhelming but it's certainly mounting.” In fact anyone reading this book impartially would learn how the scientists involved in the many fields of climate research operate and interact, where the remaining uncertainties lie and why the great majority of them have become so concerned about the prognosis for Earth's future climate that they are pleading with world leaders to take decisive action - now. An inescapable conclusion is that the handful of dubious papers or statements which have inexcusably slipped through the IPCC's normally robust review process - the core of Mr Smead's arguments - have been truly swamped by the avalanche of research findings from many disciplines, nearly all of them lending strong support to the basic truth of anthropogenic change. In contrast, the vitriolic outbursts from well known sceptics promoting the conspiracy theory of 'shonky science” and 'world domination” by the UN could not be further from reality.

At least Mr Smead is right on one count. To say 'there is growing scientific attention to the likelihood that we are in for another Ice Age” is indeed to 'further muddy the waters”. Perhaps we shouldn't take his letters too seriously afterall.

And Rob Moores' letter of 30 July: 'Sceptics will drown as sea rises”. Nicely put!

Peter Otway, Pahoia