AUSTRALIA — After reading Mark Poynter’s critique of The Forest Wars and the David Lindenmayer response, a few points—Mr Poynter noted that: “Arguably, the book’s doubling-down on some obvious misconceptions and errors reflects a tendency to ignore or dismiss valid (and more advanced) forest science research, knowledge and advice, especially in relation to assumptions and concepts.” David Lindenmayer’s immediate reply was: “But readers should be acutely aware of Mr Poynter’s strong connections to the native forest logging industry. The implication would seem to be that anyone, like me, who has “strong connections” to the native forest industry could not possibly have a reasoned argument informed by a scientific education and decades of real-world experience to dispute opinions that do not make sense in the Australian forest environment. Communication of the differences of opinion to the general public, is a key component of a well-informed as opposed to a poorly informed public.