In this note, I analyse the latest response by Kira and van Eijnatten in which they claim that fundamentally different ways of looking at reality and profound differences in worldview play a role in this current debate. Their response has three elements, a repetition of their position and two appeals, to authority and to a majority. By basing their response on logical fallacies, their latest note, plus the history of this debate, shows that the real difference is between an approach based on acceptable standards for scientific practices and evidence and one which is not. As evidence takes precedence over fallacies, I pose a question for Kira and van Eijnatten—do they believe the evidence I have presented? I look forward to their answer. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.