This was posted 6 years 8 months 25 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
tightarse on 09/08/2017 - 08:32 intrepidtravel.com (1027 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

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 12:42

          @Danstar:

          So according to your logic, the government should be spending more on climate change in order to profit off it, and yet… They are cutting the budget for it?

          And besides, directly influencing scientific studies (besides funding them) would be a huge ethical scandal. I find it hard to believe "government fabricates climate change" would stay out of the news.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 12:44

          @l3wis992: The govt. isn't making money from climate change. The scientists claiming that global warming is destroying the Earth are receiving money for it… if they don't make these claims, they won't be in a job…kapish ?

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 12:49
          +1

          @Danstar:

          I fail to understand how either affects their job security. If you look at it in that strange way, denial would be more profitable because it would be disproving a widely accepted fact. They would be ensuring their jobs until they can provide sufficient evidence that climate change doesnt exist.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 12:52
          +1

          @l3wis992:

          Really? So for example; if there is 100 scientist that receive Govt. grants because they claim global warming is happening and need funding to find new ways to help it, prove it. But then come out and say, actually, 'man' isn't really doing much damage, if any at all.

          Do you think the Govt. will still want to pay 100 scientists ? Or maybe cut it down ? Like what is happening now ?

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 13:06
          +1

          @Danstar:

          Thats a sketchy hypothetical point first up. Secondly though, that would require collusion between the scientists hired by 1.6 billion dollars.

          With no evidence.

          How many scientists do you think that is? 2k? 20k?

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 13:11

          @l3wis992: It was an example.
          Anyway, you have your opinion, I have mine. Good day to you :)

        • l3wis992 on 09/08/2017 - 13:21

          @Danstar:

          Do you honestly believe that sort of collusion is possible? Just wondering.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 13:23
          +1

          @l3wis992: There is no collusion, there are organisations who want to be paid based on theories and possibilities…. $$$$$

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 22:19

          @ruddiger7: global warming, global warming there I said it twice. I also like the term enhanced greenhouse affect. How about anthropogenic enhanced global warming….
          So what you are saying is "they disproved science", do you know how uneducated/uninformed that sounds?

    • kpm on 09/08/2017 - 09:55
      +3

      The fact that you're still calling it "global warming" says a lot.

  • trevor99 on 09/08/2017 - 09:21
    +26

    Al Gore - the world's first carbon billionaire, enabling him to fly in private jets, massive boats and to heat his several mansions.

    The climate change industry is a giant scam for money and control.

    Follow the money.

    • ozlab on 09/08/2017 - 09:39
      +4

      Al gore is in Apple board of directors, the company that we know avoiding tax.

  • dirkgonnadirk on 09/08/2017 - 09:32
    +16

    good bargain.

    absolutely abysmal discussion.

    • tehsnrub on 09/08/2017 - 10:18
      -1

      98mins @ $100ph ~= $160
      -$160 + $8 ticket refund = loss

      • Yeah, I only watch movies in work time
        ** $8 at ace cinemas.. now that's a bargain!

      I'll watch most docos on climate change but won't sit through this con man's tripe ;-D

      • sammytrailor on 09/08/2017 - 10:23
        +3

        So, if you can watch the movie during work time, you will still collect your $160. You will get an additional $8 pay with this deal. That's a bargain the way I see it! That's a $4.89 payrise.

        • tehsnrub on 09/08/2017 - 11:13
          +4

          Haha

          I'd rather watch one of 'those' UFO proof videos on YouTube that go for 4 hours than a minute of his shit. 👌

  • catbarf on 09/08/2017 - 09:33
    +7

    Ozbargainers don't really like climate change do they? Haha

    • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 09:46
      -4

      Shows the majority have common sense and why they're on here in the first place

      • catbarf on 09/08/2017 - 10:03

        How so? :)

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 10:46
          -3

          Cos global warming is a scam, and OzB is pretty much the opposite of a scam

        • LinkMonkey on 09/08/2017 - 13:25
          +1

          @Danstar: Actually many OzB's simply don't 'believe' because many are religious (christian/muslim/jew/etc), there's no room in their belief system for science.

        • divergent on 09/08/2017 - 21:16
          -1

          @lynxmonkey: And no room in the scientist's belief system for God.

    • TRENT86 on 09/08/2017 - 19:51
      +1

      Shows which ones are thinking And have done research for themselves and the ones who follow whatever they hear LMAO. Too many sheep in the world!

  • ausdday on 09/08/2017 - 09:33

    Nice deal TA, but

    "Australian residents only."

    If Intrepid Travel can use my only paypal account email and my mobile phone to determine my status of residency, I will be very worried.

  • qwerty on 09/08/2017 - 09:35
    +3

    The movie bombed in the states opening 15th so now they do this refund here lol

  • frewer on 09/08/2017 - 09:41

    Im all of 'free' energy from the sun, wind, water, H2, cow dung and GMO corns. But there are a right way, wrong way and Al Gore way to do it.

    Btw one cant have solar panel if renting, and we all know how overly priced a piece of land in Australia.

    So if the governments of this world arent do anything about it, then … so be it. Im good either way.

  • Samsungnote10 on 09/08/2017 - 09:41
    +3

    I'm surprised being OzBargain people aren't complaining about the $1 postage costs!

    • malouphix on 09/08/2017 - 09:48
      +4

      Send to:

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

    • ausdday on 09/08/2017 - 10:30

      A true bargain will be:

      1. Use FF points to redeem a flight to Melb.
      2. Use Uber deal to go collin street.

      3. Drop the letter into the letter box of address:

        Intrepid Travel
        L7, 567 Collins Street
        Melbourne, VIC 3000

      $1 postage saved !!

      • Marty131 on 09/08/2017 - 10:49

        Or just do what Malouphix suggested

  • watkinzez on 09/08/2017 - 09:46
    +5

    Did this deal get posted on The_Donald or something?

  • Duram on 09/08/2017 - 09:47
    +1

    I thought the world was meant to be dead a few weeks after the last movies release ? oh oops this is just a propaganda film.

  • Wiede on 09/08/2017 - 09:53
    +2

    Pay for the movie then get the refund via paypal… meh the process is too inconvenient for me :)

  • Choc83 on 09/08/2017 - 09:55
    +2
    1. PDF/Online Ticket for $24.95
    2. Change Name/Fiddle with barcode
    3. Create Paypal Account
    4. Send in for claim
    5. Repeat this 80,000 times
    6. Buy Property in Sydney
    • nightelves on 09/08/2017 - 13:04
      +1

      Where's Turd? He should be reading this

  • Hinee on 09/08/2017 - 10:01
    +28

    After all the intelligent conversations I've had on here, I never expected so many OzBargainers to truly believe climate change isn't real. Shame

    • MakingBacon on 09/08/2017 - 10:06
      +2

      Go find yourself a safe space if you can't handle opposing opinions.

      • kpm on 09/08/2017 - 10:11
        +10

        Opinions that go completely against scientific consensus? Interesting.

        • divergent on 09/08/2017 - 21:23

          Prove this thing you call 'scientific consensus.' Just because you read that somewhere doesn't make it any more legitimate than the science it promotes.

        • divergent on 09/08/2017 - 22:23
          -1

          @kpm: The bible is still the most published book in the world today, far outwaying the number of subscribers to any scientific journal. Based on your argument, shouldn't you believe everything in that? Of course you don't, because, like everyone else, you only believe what you want to believe.

        • kpm on 09/08/2017 - 22:59
          +1

          @divergent: As far as I'm aware, the bible isn't published in any scientific journals (or any journals of any kind). You're also insinuating that there's a correlation between fact and how widely distributed something is, when that's a ridiculous argument in itself.

          Your last point is interesting though. "You only believe what you want to believe." I've just given you a journal article that clearly demonstrates a trend in thousands of external papers on climate change research, yet you choose to ignore it, without even providing any conflicting evidence that opposes it. Would it not make more sense to apply that argument to yourself?

        • divergent on 10/08/2017 - 21:33
          -2

          @kpm: You used the word 'reputable' which implies something that is trusted by the majority. As much as you believe science (whether published in journals or otherwise) is seen as more reputable than the bible, simply because it is taught in western schools and promoted by the secular mass media, it is not. And simply claiming that the majority of the world are ignorant because of their faith in God compared to the scientifically minded who have captured the minds of western youths does not justify it as being more reputable.

          If it came down to it, if a war emerged between the logic of man and his spiritual belief in God, faith in a higher being would always win. Simply because logic can only win a battle based on proven truths, whereas faith can win any battle, even, and most especially, in the face of such logic, even unto death. For instance, if it came down to a world on the brink of devastation, such as one faced with unstoppable global warming, and nothing man could invent was able to stop it, faith would remain the final stand of man - and not one man would know for certain whether or not his faith would have any effect, but he would strive to have that faith nonetheless. Science could never win against something as inherent to mans' core nature as his belief in a creator of his life. No matter how intelligent we all believe we can become in life, in death the welcome idea of God will always be our final thought.

      • Grok on 09/08/2017 - 10:13
        +2

        Trigger warning !

      • catbarf on 09/08/2017 - 10:13

        I prefer to deal with facts rather than beliefs, it makes it more actionable :)

      • Hinee on 09/08/2017 - 10:14
        +16

        No need to bring it down to that level mate. The thing with science is it doesn't give a damn about opinions. The empirical evidence globally is that excess carbon dioxide makes it harder for heat to escape the atmosphere, this is simple shit.

        It's great that people are challenging long held beliefs in society, but there has to be a point where the plebs just shut up and let the people who know what they're talking about do their damn job and save our planet.

        • trevor99 on 09/08/2017 - 10:40
          +7

          No. It's still a hypothesis there is no proof.
          Most of the global warming models have failed. Remember the predictions about Polar Bears and no ice by 2015?
          Polar bears are now at record numbers. Antarctic is also growing.

          No warming for 20 years now.

          To be a "climate scientist" these days, you must subscribe to the hypothesis to be hired. Simple as that.

          There are many scientists that do not subscribe to the hypothesis, including Paul Revere, the original theorist (now dead).
          He was Al Gore's lecturer at university.
          When he changed his position due to lack of evidence Al Gore refused to listen.

          Al Gore refuses to discuss or debate with anyone these days, despite ongoing repeated requests from many people.

          Many have been brainwashed by the system, not their fault, but should now take a step back and open their minds.

        • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 10:51
          +3

          @trevor99: Exactly. Consensus.

          Watch this video and it is explained pretty simply.

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

        • evocable on 09/08/2017 - 10:56
          +4

          @trevor99:

          Put it this way: what are the consequences if climate models are wrong and we take action? It costs some money and we end up with a cleaner world. So what if the climate models are right and we do nothing? Hint: it will be catastrophic.

          Think of going green like insurance, it sucks to pay for but you have to do it "just in case"

        • trevor99 on 09/08/2017 - 11:03
          +2

          @evocable:

          No. It won't achieve anything except making us poorer and insiders richer.
          Oil went from US$30 to $US120 and back to $US50. Demand didn't move much despite these gigantic % moves.
          A tax of a few % won't change consumption by anything meaningful.
          It's a fake solution.
          The power of propaganda - can convince the poor to pay for private jets of elites.

        • antonthenet on 09/08/2017 - 11:12

          @trevor99:

          Do you have source for what you have just stated? Not trying to be smart, but genuinely interested.

        • samfisher5986 on 09/08/2017 - 11:14
          +1

          @trevor99:

          Demand didn't move for oil usage because there are no viable alternatives, you buy it no matter what.

          Its a different situation for using wind power instead of coal power etc

        • thangcuoi on 09/08/2017 - 12:52

          @trevor99:

          Which Paul Revere are you referring to? Do you have a source?

          The only Paul Revere I could find is this one who died in 1818. He can't have been Al Gore lecturer.

          There are many mention of Paul Revere as the historical figure I cited above when you Google Paul Revere and Al Gore together.

        • trevor99 on 09/08/2017 - 12:59

          @thangcuoi:

          Sorry to steer you wrong is was Roger Revelle.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle

        • ChickenTalon on 09/08/2017 - 13:32

          @trevor99: nice link to his wiki, except that if you read it, seems he went to great lengths to distance himself from the criticisms of climate change.

          He was not happy that his name as an expert had been used to argue against it when he supported the theory and was actually concerned about climate change.

          source
          http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/…

        • greatlamp on 09/08/2017 - 13:44
          +1

          @trevor99: You mean energy is not a luxury good and it's demand is inelastic to price?

          Someone should tell Al Gore, he must not have realized.

          Im sure a man with an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Melbourne wouldn't be spreading propaganda intentionally?

        • greatlamp on 09/08/2017 - 13:49

          The real green house gasses are pollutants such as methane and nitrogen compounds.

          They target CO2 because $$$$

        • trevor99 on 09/08/2017 - 15:31
          +1

          The link was only to identify him. Wouldn't necessarily trust anything written on it.

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

          @trevor99: No warming the last 20 years? You don't have a rocket scientist to see that the world has just had the record three hottest years in a row: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 19:16

          @gmatht:
          "You don't have a rocket scientist to see that"

          Interesting wording.

        • divergent on 09/08/2017 - 21:27

          @gmatht: Every scientist knows that correlation does not imply causation.

        • JLai on 10/08/2017 - 10:40

          @evocable:
          The consequences for first world countries is costlier energy bills, but for third world countries it means starvation and death for a lot of very poor people. Third world countries need cheap energy to advance the country out of third world poverty.

          By the way, all the climate models that projected alarming warming have all been wrong and were all overestimated. We just don't yet know everything about how the climate works to create these elaborate computer models to make climate predictions, which in turn guides policy decisions.

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

          @divergent: Sure, but that is a different question. There are in fact a number of questions: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Are the CO2 levels rising? Is the cause of the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, human emissions? Is the climate warming? Is this warming caused by our emissions?

          My understanding is that there is now strong evidence that the answer to each of these questions is yes. One form of evidence for correlation is elimination of alternative explanations. For example, fluctuations in the suns brightness cannot be the cause, because other planets are not warming. Giving a convincing answer to each of these questions would result in an excessively long post (also I am not the best person to write such a post). If people are actually curious about the evidence, https://www.skepticalscience.com/ seems to provide a nice summary.

          I am not sure that I expect anyone to follow the link. One can find a link that claims to support any position. The real objection is frequently that they feel that they can't trust climate scientists. The climate change consensus is supported by many independent universities, NASA, the Roman Catholic church, and science mags like New Scientist and Scientific American. Note that climate science is only a small part of what universities do, AFAICT Australian universities get more more money from collaboration with mining companies.
          There are some government funded academics who do work in climate science at universities, however telling Trump and Abbott that they are wrong is not an effective way of loosening their purse strings.

          On the other side of the debate we have some Newspapers/TV. Newspapers are under strong pressure to get the paper ready for delivery in the morning. This means that "will it be ready by 6pm" is much more important than "its it scientifically accurate". A paper may have a left or right wing bias. Either way their science reporting is terrible.

          Note that my shareholder reports from fossil fuel companies do not contradict the climate consensus.

      • ScruffTheJanitor on 09/08/2017 - 12:24

        If your opposing opinion is going to get everyone killed then no, he shouldnt have to "handle it"

    • Duram on 09/08/2017 - 10:14
      +2

      Not that I don't believe it's real. I don't believe that Al Gore and some other billionaires are the solution, I don't believe adding an increased cost of living to people already struggling via carbon taxes, credits and offsets is the way forward.

    • greatlamp on 09/08/2017 - 13:35
      -1

      The point isn't that climate change is not real, the point is that it is being used to create new taxes - which don't even help the people who pay them.

      The USA started a war over taxation without representation.

      Why do we need to make billionares out of carbon traders to solve this issue. Why can't the government administer a carbon tax, instead of insisting on a global trading scheme.

      Why do Australians have to pay taxes to China & India ?

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 10:17

    Al Gore should refund/compensate all those people who watched and paid for his first propaganda trash. Climate Change is not real but Climate Profiteering and Climate Exploitation are.

    GO TRUMP!

    • Bargain4U on 10/08/2017 - 04:49

      The troll comes out to prey.

  • King Steuart on 09/08/2017 - 10:44
    +6

    I come here for bargains not conspiracy theories and political crap.

    If you're right you live, if you're wrong the planet dies.

    I think those flesh eating bugs down the Peninsula are the beginning of the end anyway. We're running out of fish and now those bugs have a taste for human flesh they're gonna evolve and take over.

    • samfisher5986 on 09/08/2017 - 10:57
      +2

      By the time those bugs evolve everyone would have realised that the earth is flat and then we'll finally be saved by Xenu from the Galactic Confederacy.

      He'll also convince us that the moon landing was faked and that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by Obama, because he is actually a Muslim which was proven to us by our dear leader, Trump.

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

    Are the Terms and Conditions that the deal mentions actually posted anywhere? Like they could be limited to the first 1000 tickets or something… otherwise the deal could get OzBargained and they'd have to refund a billionty dollars or something and people would start being refused refunds, and there would be much gnashing of lefty green teeth.

  • iand on 09/08/2017 - 12:03

    The movie that makes a point about Solar City installing solar power in India instead of some coal power plants but conveniently fails to mention that Al Gore has a substantial share holding in this company and so is Apple,note Al Gore also has a substantial share holding in and is on the board of Apple

  • Quarn on 09/08/2017 - 12:26
    +9

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    But hey they are only scientists, clearly the average OB poster knows better.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 09/08/2017 - 12:53
      +3

      No, you see, clearly they're just getting paid off. All my climate scientist friends are millionaires, all of them I tell you. How do you explain that?

      Here's a Youtube video of a reputable science man clearly showing climate change is just FAKE NEWS!.

      Sad!

    • Danstar on 09/08/2017 - 13:31

      Scientists making money ;)

      ….and begin ;)

    • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 13:58

      UK schoolboy corrects NASA data error

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39351833

      "Nasa said it was aware of the error, but believed it was only happening once or twice a year. Miles had found it was actually happening multiple times a day."

  • number5 on 09/08/2017 - 12:47
    +3

    Movie？ or commercial?

    • Grok on 09/08/2017 - 13:37

      No it's a movie, a fantasy.

  • WJD21 on 09/08/2017 - 13:03

    "*Terms and Conditions apply. "

    Well, where are the terms and conditions?

  • auna on 09/08/2017 - 13:07
    +2

    Regardless of whether "Extreme Weather", "Climate Change", "Global Warming" is real or not, this movie is a propaganda piece against Trump.

    This deal makes the globalist scum money. I've had enough made in China food, thanks!

  • drillvoice on 09/08/2017 - 16:41

    <generic conspiracist comment>

    • muncan on 09/08/2017 - 17:49

      "Theormonuclear war causes climate change"
      Nek minut skeptics asking for a peer review.

  • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 16:47
    +2

    How come nobody ever talks about a plastic tax to stop the destruction of the environment due to plastic ?

    Our consumer society simply uses too much plastic and packaging for many if not most things, and tehres no argument that plastic is everywhere and is killing everything in the worlds oceans. So where are the champions concerned about this very real matter which unlike carbon actually be solved or significantly improved with a bit of will powera nd community support.

    • Russ on 09/08/2017 - 19:27

      Problem is that a tax only raises money, it doesn't solve the problem. Richer people will still discard plastic bags and not care.

      If you could make all disposable plastic items have a deposit, then kids would collect them to make pocket money. I would expect that fully-biodegradable plastics, like cellophane, would be exempt. That would quickly steer manufacturers towards fully-biodegradable plastics.

      • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 19:30

        R > Problem is that a tax only raises money, it doesn't solve the problem. Richer people will still discard plastic bags and not care.

        Forget taxation, im simply wondering why nobody even the greens ever mentions anything remotely about the plastic problem. The first part of solving any problem is to admit and identify, the solution be it taxation or anything else comes after.

        R > If you could make all disposable plastic items have a deposit, then kids would collect them to make pocket money. I would expect that fully-biodegradable plastics, like cellophane, would be exempt. That would quickly steer manufacturers towards fully-biodegradable plastics.

        ALl that is great, but my first step would be simply to reduce the shear amount of wrapping of so many of the things we buy from fresh food to packaged goods. In the end less packaging is a good start…

        • Russ on 10/08/2017 - 00:48

          why nobody even the greens ever mentions anything remotely about the plastic problem

          My guess is that the Greens want to get more people elected, so they don't pick on measures (like a plastic tax) that will be hugely unpopular.

          If I was a politician wanting to change the world, I would start with the most important and popular changes, then gradually move down the list to the less-important and less-popular measures. It's not the best approach for the planet, but pragmatically, it's the most effective approach a green politician can take.

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 17:18
    +1

    "in the past two years it[carbon credit fraud 2011] escalated into an organised crime depriving taxpayers of €5bn in revenue. At one point, fraudsters accounted for up to 90pc of all [carbon] market activity in some European countries, with more than 100 people arrested mainly from Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/82905…

    "Another deep controversy hit last March, when it emerged that some governments, in particular Hungary, had started "recycling" credits, or selling on old ones that had already been used for financial gain. Old credits can be legally sold to the so-called voluntary markets, favoured in places such as Japan, where companies that want to "greenwash" their image buy credits to show their environmental credentials to customer."

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 17:21

    Doom Porn Agenda 21 Skull and Bones

  • shortgum on 09/08/2017 - 18:04

    We have a few eventcinema movie vouchers bought online early months which cost $10 expire end of this month. but if you redeem movie voucher the ticket will show $0.00. how do you get your refund with these voucher tickets?

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 19:29
    +1

    Who can accurately quote Australia, Indonesia or Canada's carbon output for 2016, bushfires and bushfire prevention burning carbon output inclusive? Answer: absolutely no one. Yet people still model and project into the future like it's factual science. There was a million hectare bushfire in the Kimberley region. Do you think Australia pays or will pay for all this output? We don't even know the amount. It would take millions of qualified scientists to quantify.

    • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 19:32
      +1

      Or how about all those volcanos…when will they bankrupt iceland for continuing to experiment with volcanos.

    • Diji1 on 09/08/2017 - 20:16
      +1

      Who can accurately quote Australia, Indonesia or Canada's carbon output for 2016, bushfires and bushfire prevention burning carbon output inclusive?

      Scientists.

      • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 23:07

        To within how many 1000 tonnes and what is the figure? How many scientists attended the firezones? Your answer is as simplistic as saying "Because George Clooney".

  • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2017 - 19:46

    Here's an inconvenient truth. Russia and it's Gazprom owning leader Putin stand to make trillions of dollars from global warming thawing the Northern permafrost and opening up vast new untouched areas for oil and mineral mining. Every single degree of climate warming is the sound of big money. If global warming is real, Russia will be doing everything in it's power to help that along. Good luck to anyone thinking their little effort counters that. Take a look at a map of Russia and see why their Christmas wishlist is for a 5C temperature rise.

  • Diji1 on 09/08/2017 - 20:14

    I wonder if he's moved out of the 50,000 foot mansion that he forgot to put solar panels onto or whether he's stopped using the private jet plane to ferry himself about yet?

    • King Steuart on 10/08/2017 - 09:27

      Al Gore we hate but Leo makes movies we like so go Leo!

  • divergent on 09/08/2017 - 22:01

    There are two sides to every theory, and followers of each. Don't be fooled into thinking that one side is right and the other wrong because neither are actually true. No theory can ever be considered a truth, even if everyone accepts it as likely to be true. Without undeniable proof it remains 'just a theory' and theories always evolve. 'Scientific consensus' is also a theory and has not been proven. It is just something people who promote Climate Change say to make themselves feel better about their beliefs.

    What is better is to open your eyes to the agendas behind the theories. If scientists and governments really had proof of Climate Change then they would do all they could to prevent it, rather than just create these small politically-motivated carbon reduction schemes. Such things can be likened to the tail wagging the dog, and are the result of hidden agendas not of true science. I don't know what the Climate Change agenda is, but you can bet it's about money or power. So is the US agenda to enflame North Korea and to back them into a corner. War revives the economy. It always has. And a lot of people get very rich from it, and superpowers gobble up the overthrown despots. Yes, North Korea's leader might be a reactive dick, but he's being led to the slaughter by the deliberate actions of others.

    I suspect that the Climate Change agenda is probably more about power over us than revenue raising. Every new regulation brings in more red tape to bind us, requiring more grovelling to those in power in order for us to continue as normal. And continuing as normal will always be offered to those who are willing to pay for it. No matter how devastating the future the theory predicts, the government will never fully close the door on ways to continue to doing what is considered bad. Not when money paves the way, which should be all the proof you need to see that theories are not truths, just agendas.

    • SBOB on 09/08/2017 - 22:24

      Without undeniable proof it remains 'just a theory'

      thats not what 'theory' means, when it comes to scientific theories

      A 'Scientific Theory' (quoting) is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join