What Would it Mean for the "Inconvenient Truth" to be a Lie?

    After watching the movie, "The Inconvenient Truth," a questions came to my mind. What would it mean if Al Gore had some facts wrong, or facts were disproven. What would it mean if the graphs that Gore showed in the movie and his lecture series were not completely accurate?
     After coming up with this question, I googled, "The Inconvenient Truth" and read on article that disproves 35 "truths" in the movie.

(article found on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)

     Knowing this brings up the question what does this mean for the state of our environment, and is it possible that we have more time to fix the issues happening within global climate change? Even though no one wants to think that something they've hold true is a lie, is it a good thing that we have more time for action? Or does it just mean we were given a little more rope to choke ourselves with?

Is it Possible to Add an Incentive to Going Green?

   So, I've been thinking about a lot since my last post, Are We Bleeding Out our Environment, and I feel that one way we could reduce the damage, and start to end the bleeding out is a way add an incentive into going green. But in order to sway people to do something, and to give them a reward for doing that, one must first decide what they are actually going to do. Would it make sense to make a new trend featuring green technology for my generation? Should the government create a monetary reward to people who start using more environment friendly appliances, and travel? I don't think that a large group of people will go green simply because they want to, and it's the right thing to do. I think people will go green, when and if, it is trending, and there can be a more groupthink around it as to individual thinking about it. Facts are great, but incentives are better. What are some possible ideas as to what can be done to incentivize going green?

Are We Bleeding out our Environment?

     In class this week, we discussed a lot of big things. One thing we discussed made me think about whether or not are we bleeding out our environment. George Washington was an amazing battle leader, and didn't want a lavish life. He wanted to live a basic life. One of the methods of treatments back in Washington's time when someone was sick was to remove the "bad blood," by bleeding them out. The cause of George Washington's death was being bled out, due to a fever he had. Is the Doctor who bled Washington out at fault, or was the cause of his death really the fever?

       This lead me to ask myself the question, Are we bleeding the environment out. Are we over using resources to the point that the environment will no longer have enough of an immune system to prevent sicknesses form destroying it? If a sickness managed to destroy the environment, whose fault is it, ours or the sickness?