Referring to Eric French's (Letters, March 8) statement based on the misunderstanding of the meaning of theism (belief) and gnosticism (knowledge). One can hold no belief in gods (atheism) and not know whether gods exist (agnosticism) at the same time, these ideas are not mutually exclusive. By definition a believer (theist) is also an atheist to all the gods they don't worship and they must also be agnostic as we cannot ''know'' beyond all doubt that gods do or do not exist. There is one further aspect to this: if gods exist then are they automatically worthy of our worship? Mark Dawson, Gordon Eric French (Letters, March 8) raises a most interesting issue, namely whether Richard Dawkins is really an atheist or an agnostic. I read of his recent interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he denied he was an atheist. Yet in his book, The God Delusion, there was no doubt that he then espoused atheism. If he now has moved to agnosticism, the conviction that God may exist even if God is unknowable, then that represents a massive shift in his thinking and a step towards Christianity. Perhaps Dawkins, now in his 70s, has decided to embrace the teaching of Roman poet Virgil in The Aeneid. Virgil wrote that the wise person is prepared for either alternative, ie God or no God. We call it having an each-way bet. Father Robert Willson, Deakin

Improving things? The world's best Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has come up with a brilliant idea to lower the Australian dollar and improve the export competitiveness of Australian industry which has declined over the period that he has been in the Treasury portfolio. What better than to attack the resources industry, lower its contribution to our terms of trade and thereby the Aussie dollar, add a few extra taxes and levies to reduce domestic consumption of overseas imports and reduce overseas investment in Australia? That should do the trick. Ric Hingee, Duffy Climate paper When is someone going to listen to what the climate scientists are saying now? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the body of scientists that peer-reviews all relevant publications. They must surely have some idea of the present thinking.

The paper produced by the IPCC Expert Meeting on Assessing and Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, held in Boulder, Colorado, USA on January 25-27, 2010 stated, among other very interesting comments: ''Uncertainties in climate modelling arise from uncertainties in initial conditions, boundary conditions [e.g., a radiative forcing scenario], observational uncertainties, uncertainties in model parameters and structural uncertainties resulting from the fact that some processes in the climate system are not fully understood or are impossible to resolve due to computational constraints.'' The paper suggests that old computer models and their results be discarded, and that ''some, but not all of the new models will include interactive representations of biogeochemical cycles [carbon and nitrogen], gas phase chemistry, aerosols, ice sheets, land use, dynamic vegetation, or a full representation of the stratosphere''. Everyone should read this paper before they comment on climate change. Bob Woodman, Greenway Pride and respect

I disagree with G. Burgess (Letters, March 7) in that he implies that descendants of those who served their country in war should not be proud and respect what they did; as they did not do so themselves. My grandfather was at Gallipoli from day one, Passchendaele where he was awarded a Military Cross, and many other battlefields in France from 1914 to 1919. In recognition, I have worn his medals at 45 commemorations in Australia, have been to Gallipoli, to the Menin Gate event four times, and I even read the Ode there on the 85th anniversary of the Battle for Passchendaele Ridge. I did not do, or could not have done, what my grandfather did, but Burgess does not seem to understand respect, pride, appreciation and the honour to those who, in one way or another, fought for us. Steven Hurren, Macquarie Eastman trial

Jack Waterford's report (''Eastman denied second inquiry'' March 8, p1) pointed out a serious flaw in the ACT legislation pertaining to murder trials. In any other jurisdiction throughout the British Commonwealth, the production of new, solid evidence in a murder conviction means an automatic review, and if found significant, a new trial. David Eastman's trial and conviction was riddled with unfairness. The forensic evidence in the case was improbable in the extreme. As Justice Carruthers said in his summing-up to the jury: ''Eastman committed forensic suicide by not testing the forensic evidence.''

It is a pity that he did not add to his comment the fact that Eastman at the time of his trial was not acting like a person in full possession of his mind. I have no doubt our Attorney-General will do his customary imitation of Pontius Pilate on this matter. Howard Carew, Isaacs