This was posted 7 years 3 months 12 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Watch New Movie 'An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power' and Get Full Refund via PayPal @ Intrepid Travel

1300
Watch New Movie 'An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power' and Get Full Refund via PayPal @ Intrepid Travel
Go to Deal
Cashback
tightarse on 09/08/2017 - 08:32 intrepidtravel.com (1030 clicks)
Last edited 09/08/2017 - 08:35

To empower and educate us all to make a difference, we’ve teamed up with Al Gore's new feature film, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power and are offering to refund the cost of your movie ticket.

Simply post your movie ticket to the address below, along with your personal details including email address and mobile number linked to your Paypal account, and we will arrange a refund via Paypal.

Movie Refund Offer
Intrepid Travel
L7, 567 Collins Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000

Offer runs from 10 August 2017 - 10 September 2017. Claimants must have a PayPal account. Maximum ticket refund amount of $25. One ticket per person per PayPal account. Not valid with any other offer. Australian residents only.

Entertainment Movie

Related Stores

intrepidtravel.com
intrepidtravel.com

closed Comments

  • muncan on 09/08/2017 - 08:44
    +7

    shows just how close we are to a real energy revolution

    Trump announced today "fire and fury like the world has never seen". What a time to be alive.

    muncan on 09/08/2017 - 08:44 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • tightarse on 09/08/2017 - 08:45
      +6

      Sad times ahead I fear :(

        • SBOB on 09/08/2017 - 09:30
          +20

          Finally Trump will do what should have been done a long time ago.

          You're talking about our final transition to Idiocracy being real life right?
          I cant wait for more electrolytes

        • kiriakoz on 09/08/2017 - 09:41

          @SBOB: Love that movie, hate the fact that it was right.

        • bchliu on 09/08/2017 - 09:55
          +2

          As in.. destroy the f'ing world with nukes? It's a shame that humanity has the likes of you and your wisdom.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 10:19
          +1

          What, start another war and doom millions of Koreans? Great to see what you think of human life.

        • Chochkee on 09/08/2017 - 10:22

          @SBOB:

          Al Gore was completely wrong in the first propaganda film. It should be sold as fiction, considering it didn't come true.

          Man-made climate change does not exist, the world has been in perpetual change for milllions of years. We are only now breaking heat records that were set over 100 years ago, I guess all the WW1 bombers caused the hot weather back then too.

        • GreatWhiteHunter on 09/08/2017 - 10:29
          -3

          @bchliu:

          The reason why Australia is going down the toilet (examples Martin Place and Auburn) are because of the likes of you.

        • bchliu on 09/08/2017 - 10:35
          +1

          @GreatWhiteHunter: There will be no Australia with the effects of a global Nuclear war. Or you lack the intelligence to understand?

        • tunzafun001 on 09/08/2017 - 10:44

          From An Inconvenient Truth perspective you are probably right. Wipe a heap of humans off the planet is one possible solution. But as long as those being wiped out aren't your family, right?

        • GreatWhiteHunter on 09/08/2017 - 12:57
          -1

          @bchliu:

          There will never be a global nuclear war, ever.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 12:58
          +1

          @broy: People like you are the reason the world is (profanity).

        • greatlamp on 09/08/2017 - 13:23

          @broy: I'm not going to disagree that climate change is happening ( as in global warming) but It is certainly being used to shove new taxes down our throats.

          Global Carbon trading Scheme = taxes to a global government

          Shouldn't taxes you pay be spent on you?

      • quiteguy on 09/08/2017 - 13:05

        Please negotiate a deal between North Korea and US :)

    • gorge on 09/08/2017 - 08:50
      +5

      There's nothing directly wrong with the words in your quote. In fact, they're good. It shows how passionate he is about change and improvement. You're just being a contrarian.

      • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 08:53
        +1

        Fake News! lol

    • drazenm on 09/08/2017 - 09:03
      -4

      It's not trump saying, it's America saying, trump, Hillary or Peter pan, same words just different person delivering bad news, speaker, puppet. Typically American, whenever they are in financial crisis they need to invade someone and steal resources instead like the rest of the world trade… Oops, Americans dont have what to trade.

      • bchliu on 09/08/2017 - 09:57
        -2

        I disagree. It is the Greedy One Percent (GOP) that says this. Not the majority of Americans, nor the Conservatives who will feel the aftereffects either.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 15:22

          If you have to explain your witty initialism, it's probably not as witty as you think.

    • Lv80 on 09/08/2017 - 09:09
      +3

      What has Trumps comments on North Korea got anything to do with this movie or energy?

      • muncan on 09/08/2017 - 09:31
        +1

        Inconvenience

    • locknuts on 09/08/2017 - 09:32
      -1

      Go Trump!

  • Myright on 09/08/2017 - 08:51
    +29

    Tightarse.. Yes this is a bargain.. Free is always king here at OzBargain, BUT!!!!

    This Al Gore is the biggest conman in history.. This is a north Korean style propaganda movie for the West.. This guy is directly responsible for the carbon tax that fund his organisations. The guy is absolute man bear pig!

    Al gore - manbearpig

    • muncan on 09/08/2017 - 09:01
      +4

      Well. This calls for a celebration

    • Grok on 09/08/2017 - 09:08
      +8

      Agreed, conman and hypocrite.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DshdVX_MlSo&app=desktop

    • Cluster on 09/08/2017 - 10:58
      +20

      What if we spend all this time and money achieving cleaner air and water, less mercury contamination of our oceans through cessation of coal burning, a healthier environment, energy sources unbound by gas and coal reserves, and it's all wasted money?

      What if we achieve a a cleaner, better place to live and it's all for nothing but a hoax?

    • ChickenTalon on 09/08/2017 - 11:12
      +39
      What rubbish discussion

      Given just how much scientific consensus there is on man made global warming, most commentators choose to play the man and not the ball. If Al Gore clubs and eats baby seals it changes none of the facts. Facts are, human activity is causing the earth to warm. The scientific consensus is that if we continue to fill the air with gas that retains heat the earth will continue to warm.

      One thing about scientists is that they loooooove to contradict other scientists if they can. They love nothing more than finding fault with each other and telling everyone about it. The level of consensus is astonishing.

      Unfortunately, due to the way humans have evolved and once we have formed a position on something, facts which contradict that position only serve to strengthen our resolve to fight them. Here is a great explanation in an easy to digest run down from The Oatmeal.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 11:43
        -3

        When Al Gore, puts his energy use where his mouth is, then i'll start to further improve my energy usage.

        "Al Gore’s Home Energy Use ‘Surges up to 34 Times the National Average"
        http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/al-gores-electric-bill…

        But to give Al Gore some credit he is improving his wealth and luxury energy usage off the idiot lefties that switch off their lights for one hour every year, install ineffective solar panels on their roof and scream at everyone that they are saving the world, when in fact they are part of the 1% contributors to 'global warming'. Unfortuantly I'm also paying more for my bills because of these idiots

        • ChickenTalon on 09/08/2017 - 11:56
          +22

          Did you read my comment? Al Gore personally has zero to do with the facts of global warming and humans causing it. Debating his energy usage and his purchasing carbon offsets won't change any facts.

          Extending your example, higher prices are a problem. You're also paying shitloads more for just about everything due to the existing pollution laws. For example, you can't pollute rivers with industrial waste and there are huge costs involved in correctly disposing of waste in such a way that it doesn't damage our local environment. We used to have paint and other industrial manufacturers along the Parramatta river in Sydney because they could cheaply dump the byproducts into the river, which they did. This caused huge problems and you still shouldn't regularly eat fish caught in the river. Are you arguing that pollution is fine in the name of lower prices? Should we roll back these laws and start saving $$?

          You also can't use slave labour here, that makes everything pretty expensive too.

          Where should we stop?

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 12:07
          -4

          @ChickenTalon:

          I'm no scientist, and its hard to argue when a large proportion of people that have studied climate science are telling me that my first world lifestyle is leading to a complete catastrophic event that may end human civilisation. But i can also understand the earth is constantly changing and it maybe doing so with or without human intervention.

          BUT…

          Al Gore has everything to do with this. He is the poster boy on climate change. He preaches to everyone on how they should change their lifestyle and in the same breath he completely ignores what he preaches and further extends his luxiourios energy usage.

          So when the leftist idiots stop praising Al Gore and start lobbying him to completely stop his emission, then and only then will I make an effort to reduce my miniscal effect.

          The fact you have used a computer/mobile to lecture people on here about energy usage is hypocrisy to the extreme.

        • ChickenTalon on 09/08/2017 - 12:17
          +20

          @skimmermilk: I'm not a scientist either, but I do spend a long time working with them and employing them. I have an insight into how they work, how frustrating they can be in their pursuit of facts and critical analysis. Drives me nuts, because I have a business to run and need them to do what they're told.

          Nor am I praising Al Gore. I don't know how I can be any clearer: AL GORE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE.

          Debating him is like arguing everything you receive by mail is bad/wrong because the mailman is a dick. Yet you seem to be so hung up on it as a defence for your position. If he reduced his emissions you'd find something else, it's what humans are wired to do, did you read my easy to digest rundown from The Oatmeal?

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 12:21
          -6

          @ChickenTalon:

          Then the challenge for scientists are to call out people like Al Gore, Leonardo Di Caprio and idiot leftist that scream and preach climate change, but do nothing about it.

        • ChickenTalon on 09/08/2017 - 12:31
          +5

          @skimmermilk: Well, due to my dealings with scientists I've also got insight into that too.

          What makes a person good at science (critical thinking, drive, demonstrating irrefutable proof and passion for facts) I've found also makes them utterly useless at selling ideas and public discourse. It's not something a scientist is going to spend much time on, they wouldn't give it the priority and that's not their area of expertise.

          Scientists spend their efforts attacking ideas, theories, concepts etc. They generally avoid any critique of the person making a claim. I've found that they play the ball and not the player.

        • gmatht on 09/08/2017 - 16:05
          +3

          @ChickenTalon: Broadly I think it is a good thing that scientists (mostly) don't speak outside their area of expertise. People already tend to link scientific conclusions to values. For example, in the US, it is taken as a given that the wealthy have a right to enjoy their wealth, and are suspicious that global warming is an excuse to give money to the poor. However, global warming scientists really have little to say on whether wealth distribution is wrong. A carbon tax probably wouldn't stop Al Gore or Trump from flying round in private jets.

          Both the left and the right have "inconvenient truths", whether it be "climate change is real" or "concerns about GMO's safety aren't justified by scientific evidence". I don't think politically inexperienced scientists calling people idiot leftists/rightists would help. In general I'd prefer to keep value judgements and scientific facts separate.

      • teasatotalling on 09/08/2017 - 12:26
        +1

        Given just how much scientific consensus there is on man made global warming, most commentators choose to play the man and not the ball.

        Because Conservatives lack the intellectual rigour to engage in evidenced based thinking - logical fallacies are their bread & butter

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 12:55
          +1

          Did you mean "evidence based thinking"?

      • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 16:44

        Well let me ask you a question. WHere are these concerned commentators concerning plastic and other materials that are killing the environment ?

      • JLai on 09/08/2017 - 17:40
        +1

        In the past, it was scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.

        Nowadays, scientist who come out to say that more research is required into global warming/climate change before we start proposing/imposing any sort of "solution" are automatically labelled as deniers or sell outs to oil and coal companies.

        From the original "documentary", what happened to the "10 year tipping point" crisis that global warming would cause?
        The Pacific atolls in New Zealand would need to be evacuated <— didn't happen.
        The Ocean Conveyor would be shut down entirely <— didn't happen.
        Their would be Record numbers of North Atlantic hurricanes with higher category would hit the US <— didn't happen. They're actually in the longest major hurricane drought in US history of 11 years (and counting).
        Climate change will be killing polar bears <— didn't happen
        Mt. Kilimanjaro would no longer have snow <— didn't happen
        The ice in Greenland or West Antarctica would melt away and cause sea levels to increase by as much as 20 feet <— didn't happen.

        Of course we should reduce pollution and deforestation, but more research is needed into global warming, the science is not settled and should not be.

        • tunzafun001 on 10/08/2017 - 13:23
          +1

          From my experience - Fly over Europe on a clear night and try to convince yourself humans have no impact!

          From my experience try to explain the climate change myth to the undeveloped nations such as the people of the Nuatambu islands, even our neighbours in Vanuatu. They couldn't give a stuff about Science, they just live the reality thier homes are becoming a non viable option.

          Lastly, who cares if it is accurate Science or not? Lets pull our heads out of our butts, accept we have the biggest impact on the environment (again regardless if it is significant or not)and use the technologies we have. We can run a car / plane /truck/ ship / train/ rocket off water, we can generate electricty with wind, sun, tides, swell ,thermal. We can store energy in anything from molten salt and silicone to battery arrays. We can recycle resources…etc. Less debate, more action.

        • JLai on 11/08/2017 - 16:27

          @tunzafun001: Your conflating environment with climate/global warming. No-one has said humans don't impact the environment. No-one is against the reduction of pollution. No-one is against further research and development into green technology.

          Scientists who don't share the "consensus" view have serious concerns about the policies being introduced on the back of climate change models that have been inaccurate and seriously overestimated.

          For us in the first world, sure if the alarmist climate models are wrong and we implemented all these climate change policies, we'd be just financially impacted, but in the third world and for the very poor, it means the difference between starvation/death and having one meal a day. Third world countries need a huge amount of energy to climb out of third world poverty and to industrialise, they cannot afford "green" energy which is still highly inefficient and very expensive.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 11/08/2017 - 16:34
          +3

          @JLai: This whole narrative about dissenting view is idiotic astro turf subservience. A mix of uppity conservative pundits and cynical vested interests is leading a side of the debate. Actual scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement on global warming. It's generally the less educated, less intellectually curious/capable who are arguing that AGW isn't a thing.

        • JLai on 11/08/2017 - 17:09

          @JohnHowardsEyebrows: The 97% Consensus is extremely misleading and false. Show me the list of all the worlds climate scientists that agree or disagree… hint, there isn't one. Do your research about how this "consensus" term of "humans are the PRIMARY cause" of global warming came about. I'll give you the TLDR version;

          11944 climate change papers between 1991 and 2001 were reviewed/surveyed led by John Cook.
          7930 papers were excluded as they held no position.
          3896 papers agreed we caused some of the warming.
          64 papers endorsed that we are likely the primary cause.
          41 papers agreed that we are definitely the primary cause.
          0 papers endorsed climate catastrophe as man-made.
          - Research done by Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher.

          Look at the language used by alarmist; "dissenting view" or "deniers". Like the AGW is the truth resulting catastrophe.
          Why do alarmists, like yourself, find the need to go on a personal attack? Always trying to discredit the presenter rather than the presented content. We could say the same about climate scientists who hold the alarmist view, who would be out of a job without the funding from governments if they didn't present desired results that didn't fit the crisis narrative.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 11/08/2017 - 17:20
          +2

          @JLai: Isn't it amazing how many conservative non scientists know more than actual scientists? Isn't it a delightful coincidence that most of the opinion in the negative is funded by the very people with the most to lose by phasing out fossil fuels?

          The temperatures are undeniably rising. The correlation between the temperature and CO2 emissions is not denied. The Reef is on its last legs (not denied), ice caps are melting in the arctic and Antarctic, and Pacific islands are being swallowed.

          But hey, somebody had an opinion that made you feel better, so let's treat them with equal respect, regardless of their toxic impact on the debate?

          Freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to voice silliness without censure.

        • JLai on 11/08/2017 - 17:44
          -1

          @JohnHowardsEyebrows: So non scientists are not allowed to read the views of scientists that have differing analysis of data and form an opinion? I'm not a politician, should I be silenced and not have a political opinion? I'm not a professional basketballer, should I not have an opinion about which player a team should sign, trade or draft for? Elitism and authoritarianism at its finest. Always deferring to personal attacks.

          You do realise that graph Al Gore presented in the first movie that had the CO2 and temperature rise was incorrect right? The temperature rises first, then the CO2 rise follows. Research it.

          So how much has the sea level risen in the last 10 years?
          20 feet?
          15 feet?
          10 feet?
          5 feet?
          It's risen year on year between 0.8mm to 3.2mm on average 1.8mm per year … yes MILLIMETRES.

          I'm done. I can't be bothered discussing topics with emotional snowflakes.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 11/08/2017 - 17:54
          +4

          @JLai:

          Everybody's right to have an opinion - but those of us who don't know the first thing about it would do well to back those who understand science. You can always find a charlatan to give you an opinion that matters. What's important is to make a judgement call as to who's a charlatan. A few centuries ago it was the establishment that were the charlatans, with the intelligent ones often persecuted for voicing opinions the others couldn't understand.

          It's not like that these days. We have centuries of progress built on science, and institutions that keep science from being captured by purveyors of pseudo garbage. If what you're asserting is true, those institutions would at the very least be amenable to debating the topic. As it stands, all we really have are fruit loops like Malcolm Roberts, half-educated racists commenting above their station in life like Andrew Bolt, fake peers like Chritopher Monckton. But I'm sure in a debate of scientific modelling that none of us non-scientists can deeply understand, those three know better than the eminent scientists of the world.

          As for the CO2 trailing the climate rise - are you implying that the volcano eruptions whose emissions precipitated the carboniferous age only came about because of the climate warming?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXrYvd-LBu0

        • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2017 - 18:29
          -2

          @JohnHowardsEyebrows:
          "It's generally the less educated, less intellectually curious/capable who are arguing that AGW isn't a thing."
          I thought the left were against privilege.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 11/08/2017 - 18:29

          @Frugal Rock: I'm not that kind of lefty. :)

        • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2017 - 19:01
          -2

          @JohnHowardsEyebrows:
          Why is it that climate change science is to be strictly accepted due to concensus, yet the scientific consensus that IVF and other reproductive assistance techniques increase genetic diseases gets ignored/gagged due to emotional and taboo parenthood factors. We learn survival of the fittest in school, we accept Darwinism and evolution theory in university…yet we actually practise the exact opposite in hospitals. Damaging the gene pool with emotional and selfish genetic decisions is deemed a personal choice and the science is muted.

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 11/08/2017 - 19:09

          @Frugal Rock: You're preaching to the converted mate. The left is pissing in its own bed when it lets these emotional arguments rule the roost.

        • divergent on 11/08/2017 - 20:58
          -3

          @Frugal Rock: Logic is only part of the equation to life. While your bashing the emotional and calling them unintelligent, you're overlooking the fact that there is something just as equal to logical intelligence, and that is emotional intelligence. The conclusions of which form a completely different reality to the one of logic. Furthermore, for those who have an understanding of both, there is an even greater intelligence, which is spiritual intelligence, which comes from the oneness of both logic and emotion, which comprises a much higher understanding of life, higher than cause and effect, higher than good and evil, higher than love and fear. It is the intelligence of a creator God, the one behind life, that created all that exists. In this reality, there is an understanding of mankind's insignificance in the scheme of things, in which global warming is nothing more than a fantasy, conjured up by minds lost in paranoia, with their proofs amassing solely because that's all their minds can focus on, with opposing proofs being completely ignored, because those are of the faithful, not the fearful, and incompatible with their theories. While you herald the scientific mind as high and mighty, as great and unchallenged, as perfect and incorruptible, all I hear are the ramblings of a mind lost in fear, urgently grasping for reasons for its fear, searching for a way to end the suffering it foresees, which it alone envisaged and manufactured through incomplete proofs, by separating logic from reason, and man from God, and then trying to persuade the world that its dark conclusions are the one and only truth. But science is far from truth. Its proofs are one-sided, its righteous conclusions are formed in the shadows of reality, and those who promote it refuse to see anything else. It struggles to take hold in the minds of the majority because it is flawed, incomplete, unemotional and inhuman. It is pure logic and contains no knowledge of the one behind the one that imagined it. It will never find a place of holiness in the hearts of men, so it will never win the battle it thinks it must win over the emotional, since the emotional are its equal. The mind is no greater than the heart, and the heart no greater than the mind. You would do well to learn humility, to have your 'intelligence' seek the truths that exist outside of its logical stronghold. There is a whole reality that doesn't need science to save it. Ignorance is bliss, and yes this is because the ignorant don't see the darkness that your theories proffer, but more than that, it is also because they have faith in something much greater than your fears.

        • SBOB on 11/08/2017 - 21:10
          +3

          @divergent:

          Divergent, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
          At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
          Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 12/08/2017 - 00:45

          @Frugal Rock: We accept those concepts as forces of nature, not as societal models. The only thing damaging the gene pool right now is your dumb ass. Honestly can't believe I'm reading this eugenics bullshit on OzBargain, my confidence in the population of this country has just plummeted after reading this thread, this place is (profanity).

        • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2017 - 07:38

          @ProspectiveDarkness:
          It's an embarrassing blight on the Australian education system that you either don't know, or don't understand, the difference between eugenics and natural selection. You are also a prime example of prioritising emotion and theatrical triggering over science. Let me put an 'Exhibit A' sticker on your froth spattered brow.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 12/08/2017 - 12:48

          @Frugal Rock: Eugenics is essentially the belief that selection should be applied to the human population. Which is literally exactly what your comment is getting at. They are very related topics, so don't even try to worm your way out of it. I mean seriously, how can you use the phrase "damaging the gene pool" without a hint of self awareness.

          You people think you can sling around the word "science" as if you know what it means. It doesn't mean morally blind objectivism in a vacuum. Ethics are an extremely important part of science - and eugenics is pretty contrary to that. Saying that hospitals are bad because they "damage the gene pool" is contrary to that. How do I know? Because I actually study science. Majoring in genetics. Meaning I know a shitload more about the things you pretend to. GTFO, (profanity).

        • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2017 - 13:23
          -1

          @ProspectiveDarkness:
          You are surrounded by an aura of naive undergraduate tutorials, TBH. When you aren't swearing in stunted inarticulate frustration, that is. No need to state the obvious, that you haven't graduated, or worked in the industry, but have already conflated science with your ideology. I accept you seem to know your ordure, back to front, and I will defer faecal knowledge and coprolaliac artisanry to that 'embarrassment of riches' italicised load of yours. It's quite pronounced.

          Go and lecture the untouched tribes in Brazilian rainforests who ONLY survive due to their selectivism that idealists like you brand as barbarism. Go and browbeat them about ethics, and then go and dig up the bones of the extinct tribes who practised humanitarian diversity to their inbred demise.

          Do you scientifically believe insulated, inbred native tribes in Brazil are better off practising your privileged uni student humanitarian ethics, or the selectivist traditions they have practised for centuries for basic tribe survival?

      • divergent on 09/08/2017 - 21:10
        +2

        Stop believing the propaganda. The biggest lie, above all other lies, is that 'most scientists believe in climate change.' It's a statement that has been bandied about to justify the climate change theory, but has itself never been justified. Most scientists are not climate scientists and don't know the first thing about climate change, and of course those scientists who are believe in it because that is what their career is founded on. There is also a very factful science that opposes it, with their own bunch of credible scientists that vouch for it. They also do so because their brand of science is founded on their beliefs as well. Come back to me when the shit really hits the fan, like that unbelievable graph that Al Gore promoted in his last movie that never actually eventuated. No doubt he'll have an excuse for it in this movie, along with a whole new graph to predict all our deaths in the next two or three decades. Believe what you want, but if the proof is not in the pudding then it's just hot air designed to enlist your righteous support for their hidden agenda.

      • gigdiary on 10/08/2017 - 21:46
        -2

        "Facts are, human activity is causing the earth to warm. The scientific consensus is that if we continue to fill the air with gas that retains heat the earth will continue to warm."

        Complete hogwash. There is no proof that the minuscule amount of CO2 produced by man is causing the planet to heat.

        "Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global annual CO2 emissions, 3 per cent of the total annual global emissions are anthropogenic and the atmosphere contains 400 parts per million by volume of CO2, then one molecule in 6.6 million molecules in the atmosphere is CO2 emitted from humans in Australia. This molecule has an atmospheric life of about 7 years before it is removed from the atmosphere by natural sequestration into life and limey sediments." - Ian Plimer

    • Orpheon on 09/08/2017 - 11:25
      +1

      Context: South Park Season 10 Episode 6: ManBearPig featuring Al Gore.

    • greatlamp on 09/08/2017 - 13:26
      +1

      Down with Al Gore and Down with global government

      Your taxes should be used to help your community

      Oppose all global carbon trading schemes

    • ggrant on 09/08/2017 - 14:35

      Exagerates like most activists tend to, but you people are falling for the bigger con as I understand it!

    • TRENT86 on 09/08/2017 - 15:16
      +2

      Yep just one post I can't + because I h8 this Corrupt piece of shit Gore!

    • diddy50 on 09/08/2017 - 22:01
      +1

      Biggest con in the modern history.
      Al Gore is a disgrace

  • Scab on 09/08/2017 - 08:55
    +2

    mobile number linked to your Paypal account

    Why do they need that?

    Also not everyone has a mobile, or only have a landline with PayPal.

    • Lv80 on 09/08/2017 - 09:09
      +2

      So they can market to you. You don't get something for nothing!!! Duh!

  • Grok on 09/08/2017 - 09:06
    +12

    Thanks for the FAKE NEWS

    • ego22 on 09/08/2017 - 09:52
      +8

      ahhhhhhh man…. my sarcasm radar must be out. because i am really stumped with this one..

  • easternculture on 09/08/2017 - 09:11
    +16

    Nice , worth the trip to the cinema next door and picking up old cinema tickets on the ground 😏😏😏

    Multiple Paypal account = profit

    • ozy on 09/08/2017 - 09:14
      +6

      Haha!
      Winning,

      And it's good for the environment too!

      • easternculture on 09/08/2017 - 09:15
        +5

        Nice way to fund my much needed tech upgrades

        New MacBook , 70inch TV , iPhone , tablet etc

        I reckon I can smash $500 a day … what was that jv … challenge accepted !!!

    • Cleartype on 09/08/2017 - 09:23
      +9

      Please explain how climate change leads to extortion by the government?

      • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 09:27
        -5

        ever heard of the carbon tax, champ?

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 09:38
          +8

          The whole point of a carbon tax is to discourage energy usage by raising prices. People use less if it costs them more, ergo better for the environment

        • Cleartype on 09/08/2017 - 09:42
          +15

          Interesting to complain about a carbon tax but omit mention of fossil fuel subsidies. They are much easier to argue as examples of extortion, as you say, and any previous carbon tax revenues pale in comparison.

        • Jackson on 09/08/2017 - 10:17
          +6

          @l3wis992: i would word that differently, it's to encourage businesses to be responsible for their own pollution, and then divert the revenue to places that can offset pollution that does take place.

          It's also the most elegant market driven solution anyone has come up with

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 10:57

          @Jackson:

          Fair point

      • malouphix on 09/08/2017 - 09:27
        -3

        Carbon tax for one. Open your eyes. The Government don't have us in their best interest. If you believe this, then I am sorry.

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 09:33
          +4

          The whole point of a carbon tax is to discourage energy usage by raising prices. People use less if it costs them more, ergo better for the environment.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 09:45
          +1

          @l3wis992: And does anyone actually use less? I think not…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tivRM1lQUKU

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 09:58
          +9

          @Danstar:

          Thats not a study, nor is it related to australia.

          According to the department of the environment, our emissions dropped by 1.4% (+/- a small margin) over the two years the tax was in effect. That is a fact. The carbon tax worked exactly as intended and reduced power usage.

          This is a study:

          http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/1411.htm

        • ruddiger7 on 09/08/2017 - 09:59
          +2

          @l3wis992: Al Gores family uses 34 times the amount of electricity than the average american family, ergo better for the environment.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 10:47

          @l3wis992: A whole 1.4% + or - a margin…hmmmm

        • Russ on 09/08/2017 - 10:50
          +2

          @ruddiger7:

          34 times the amount of electricity

          Al Gore purchases renewable energy for his properties, at higher cost than carbon-based electricity. So he's putting his money where his mouth is.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Criticism

          Is using more electricity a problem, if it's all renewable energy? In a way, his money is helping to fund the expansion of renewable energy.

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 10:53
          +2

          @ruddiger7:

          First of all, thats irrelevant to this argument. Secondly, after basic googling, those numbers are exaggerated, he also uses his home as an office (ergo higher energy usage) and he pays a significant amount of money to make sure his energy is from green sources.

          Even so, hypocrisy doesnt make the message moot. Global warming is an increasing issue, and the carbon tax is an effective way to combat it.

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 10:55

          @Danstar:

          My mistake, the estimated change due to carbon tax was actually -1.8% +/-.05%.

        • ruddiger7 on 09/08/2017 - 11:13
          +1

          @l3wis992: But its climate change now, they dont say global warming no more after being disproved to many times.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 11:17

          @l3wis992: How do we know that the reduction of energy isn't the result of more efficient technology? Or more efficient work practices ?

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 11:24

          @Danstar:

          Am I doing your research for you? If you'd like to argue that point please have a look and link a study or some evidence.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 11:29
          -1

          @l3wis992: I did read it

          It is likely that in response, households, businesses and the industrial sector reduced their electricity use.

          Keyword: likely

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 11:32

          @l3wis992:

          In the end of the day, you can either believe in it and pay for 'alternatives' and assume you're doing the right thing

          Or you can not believe/care about it and hope that scientists are trying to make a change for the better, not for their back pockets.

        • Jackson on 09/08/2017 - 11:38

          @ruddiger7: it's not about how much you use, it's about where it comes from. If it all came from solar and wind he could use as much as he wants and no one should give a toss

        • Jackson on 09/08/2017 - 11:41

          @Danstar: it probably is partly the use of more efficient tech, more efficient tech employed due to the fact that people would otherwise be paying more money in taxes. How hard is it to under set and this?

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 11:44

          @ruddiger7:

          Climate change is a result of global warming. Global warming itself refers to the effect of fossil fuels on our planet, as the resultant gasses accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat.

          Im not sure what you mean when you say noone uses global warming any more, I havent noticed it.

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 12:00

          @Danstar:

          All science is a matter of likelihood. If you can point to a change in technology implemented across australia in those two years that resulted in a whopping 1.8% reduction in energy, please let me know. Otherwise it's just conjecture.

          "But what about the dragons sitting in the north pole spewing out flame and heating up the planet? Noone can prove they dont exist so they must cause global warming"

          Im not sure what your other comment means. Being eco friendly starts with the people. Scientists dont make profit out of misleading the public, and their results are always open to refutation. Al Gore sees a need for the planet to work towards green energy and he believes the best way to do so is by spreading awareness.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 12:13
          +1

          @l3wis992: They don't make money out of it? Are you sure?

          So you're saying the Government would still poor money into 'climate change' science, if scientists came out and said "there is no direct evidence suggesting our climate is warming due to human causes" ?

          I think they would have to look for a new line of work if that was the case.

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 12:26

          @Danstar:

          Link to source for government "pouring money into climate change science"?

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 12:31
          +1

          @l3wis992:

          https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/budget2017

          $1.2 billion in 2017, $1.9 billion in 2016, $2.3 billion in 2015

          Lets hope they keep cutting year upon year ;)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join