Thank you so much for doing all you can to set the record straight.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I haven't seen the movie yet and I'm sympathetic to Gore's position, but I'm not sure I can agree with the words as spoken. What does "over-represent mean anyway? exaggerate? embellish? or what? I suspect Gore simply meant that he portrays the worst-case scenario within a scale of projections, before presenting more hopeful scenarios. But it was an unfortunate choice of words]

In any case, I don't think there is any need to "over-represent" the evidence and implications of global warming. Even taking middle-of-the-road projections, the picture is plenty dire.

And Patrick Michaels can go to hell.

http://www.alternet.org/story/25351/

So how would it be possible "to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is."   We are developing a dichotomy between those who understand the urgency, and those that don't.

People seemed determined to misinterpret this.

Look at it this way. You have a council on global warming. Its job is to speak to the American public on the subject.

On that council, you have two groups represented. One group is called "factual representations of how dangerous it is." One group is called "discussions of how we can solve the problem." If the council was convened to speak to Europeans, the latter group would be given greater representation, since most Europeans are already convinced there's a problem. But since the council is meant to address Americans, who are not yet convinced there's a problem, the first group is over-represented.

In other words, Gore meant he has to spend longer explaining the problem and less time discussing solutions when he's speaking to American crowds.

It was extremely clear in person -- and, I think, fairly clear in transcript -- that Gore's meaning had nothing to do with exaggerating the danger. Nothing. Once and for all.

grist.org

Challenge television disinformation in both premise and context.  

Right? So, why'd he have to gussy it up with "over-represent" this and "predicate" that?

And Gore, for better or worse, is not a person that uses words like "folks." He doesn't use down-homey language to convince people he's "one of them." It's probably the reason he's not president.

He's a smart guy, he uses long words, and he likes to be precise. In this case, he botched a sentence, probably by running together two thoughts or phrases. Reading with even the slightest sense of charity would make that interpretation the obvious one. It's astonishing how people treat public figures -- no wonder he doesn't want to run.

grist.org

      If you get an answer (unlikey, these folks have no interest in anything remotely resembling truth, fairness or justice), please share it with us.

      No one should ever be surprised that they distort.  It is a standard campaign tactic of the right (and all too frequent in American politics at all levels, by both parties, but the right has become masters of the tactic!).

      I'm with Da Silva, curse them for liars, and move on.  

      We need to figure out how to craft a winning campaign and build a movement that will change the way Americans see global warming.  Worrying about these loonies is a waste of time.  They don't deserve the energy or the respect.

      Keep up the good work David and don't waste too much of your breath on those fools (intended as descriptive not insulting).

patrick

Astonishing? C'mon, man. Anyone who reads Grist knows you don't exactly go easy on public figures.

What's more, I did read the interview charitably and, for what it's worth, I thought it was a great. Nice job.

Still, like it or not, politicians are held accountable for the words that come out of their mouths. And what came out of Gore's mouth in that instance was (sorry) wonky gibberish. If the question you asked him was, as you say, more complicated than is reflected in the transcript, then maybe you ought to give us the unexpurgated version.

Better yet, don't. This is all starting to seem like much ado about nothing.

And you don't even need David's summary here. Just read what Michaels says. Gore's saying "it's appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is" is not the same thing as saying "He says it's appropriate to over-represent the danger on this issue" as Michaels paraphrases it.

That's an obvious misrepresentation of Gore's statement. If Gore had said "it's approriate to over-represent the danger" of global warming, then Michaels would have a point. But Gore didn't say that, so Michaels has to give Gore's quote and then quickly paraphrase it to mean something other than what Gore said.

Pretty low if you ask me, and like I said I'm much closer to Michaels' view on global warming than Gore's.

Message received, Al.  ...long, long ago.

The philosophy of foxnews exemplified by O'Really, Insanity, and the whole  fauxnews gang!  Excellent!!

Throw in Booortz, Drug Limbaugh, and that new guy on the bushwackin team, snowjob.

They lyed US right into this mess o' bushmania.  No way out now.  Nice voting Claire!!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin