The event catered for all ages and provided a background for encouraging and empowering one and all to appreciate and invest time in creating and caring for our environment. Congratulations.

Two great letters in Friday's Border Mail from Chris Lehmann and Derek Robinson debunking some of the climate denier nonsense that has been published recently.

Perhaps The Border Mail could consider not publishing letters from climate deniers in future. There might be some objections but the reasons for not printing climate denial articles and letters are quite compelling. For one thing the science is well settled and we need to move on to working out our reaction to the changing climate, not still debating whether or not it's happening.

Second it's far too important to waste time on, the crisis is real and serious.

I'd like to see climate change denialist recognised as a lunatic fringe like flat earthers, but publishing their views in your paper continues to give them an unwarranted veneer of legitimacy.

Derek Robinson's letter 'Can we move forward?' (The Border Mail, October 11) regarding climate change perfectly demonstrates several things.

Point one is that he relies on the assertion that 97 per cent of accredited world scientists agree that climate change is man made. If he takes the slightest effort to research the source of this 97 per cent claim he would find it is a contrived, selective and misrepresented statistic by an author whose research methodology has been roundly condemned by far more credentialed scientists and statisticians. Yet he relies on this falsehood as if it's gospel which it is not.

IN OTHER NEWS:

Point two is that he states "There is really no argument...", and yet in recent weeks some 500 of the world's highly qualified climate and related fields scientists made a lengthy submission to the United Nations and strongly challenged the notion of any "climate emergency" . This is in addition to the tens of thousands of other scientists who've been exposing the myth for years. This smacks of a certain degree of arrogance as if it is impossible to hold any other researched view and if you do, you're a "denier".

Point three I make about CO2. This benign gas has varied in concentrations over millenia and its recent levels have contributed to windfalls in harvesting of food production around the world thereby reducing hunger. Again, there's volumes of evidence contradicting the global warming fanatics if one had a truly objective and a critical thinking mind.

We must be careful to not be seduced into the climate change hysteria coming from dubious, hypothetical modelling methodology but maintain a strict inquiring mind and be open to admitting, on occasions that you got it wrong.