Posted on 05/25/2006 11:11:43 AM PDT by Republican Red
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore
"This from the same guy who manically screamed that Bush misled this nation?????"
You forgot the most important part of that quote from Gore, " . . . he played on our fears!!"
Ivy league schools are going to have to start issuing some sort of money back guarantees for allowing their graduates to go around representing themselves as the best and brightest. The fact that they are below middling is doing real damage to the rest of us. . .
When he says "on how dangerous..." he's referring to the topic, not the content itself.
Any English teachers out there that can back me up on this?
You have a decent argument that Gore isn't lying THIS time; however, this is politics. It looks enough like a lie for it to be used to advantage. Gore could have said what he meant in a more precise manner. He failed to do so, and should be made to pay the price by the dilution of his message.
Sorry if a knowledge of the English language qualifies me as a moron. Guess that's what I get for trying to make others not look foolish whom I agree with politically.
Fine, go out on that grammatical limb, and see if I'm around to catch you when it gets cut off.
I agree with you, but again, it's a matter of not putting ourselves in the same position as those who scream about Bush lying if he was merely wrong on some facts. The other side is all about manufacturing criticisms, so I don't like to hand them any real ones if I can avoid it.
I don't need to comment.
I was thinking about this expression: over-representing factual presentations. How does one "represent" a factual presentation? One way of reading that is that it is a characterization of what the facts are or what their import is. To over-represent would be to exaggerate, i.e., lie, about the factual presentation. I don't think to "represent" means the same as to "present." Frankly, I am not clear on what Gore is trying to say here (not that HE would ever be accused of mis-speaking, unlike President Bush). The intent of his words may very well have been as suggested by many on this thread.
If you can help clarify "represent" in this context, I would be much obliged.
Theeth people are sooo thtoked on me... they justht don't know it yet.
The socialist left does the Chicken Little routine to drum up donations and government grants. The validity of the global warming argument does not take into account the natural CO2/Oxygen cycle, which has been going on for eons, does not need the effects of human activity. The natural effects of the sun putting out more energy is obvious. The sun being a self contained fusion reaction does not have a wizard behind the curtain controlling its output. The sun operates according to the laws of physics.
It is interesting that no attention is focused on the fusion process of the sun. The majority of the public has no idea of the nature of this process and its cyclic nature. The reason is that these envirototalitarians do not want the public informed because then, there would be more skepticism of their Chicken Little conspiracy.
mendacity
n : the tendency to be untruthful
GOREdacity
n: the inability to tell the truth, especially about global warming, cow flatulence, Communist Chinese campaign donations, and any other utterance coming out of the mouth of Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.'s mouth.
Well -- the OED gives a number of definitions of representation, each slightly different, but I figure the best fit is this one:
"The action of placing a fact, etc., before another or others by means of discourse; a statement or account, esp. one intended to convey a particular view or impression of a matter in order to influence opinion or action."
And I think a fair interpretation of "over-representation" is a hard sell, pressing one point of view without giving a full picture. Is that a lie? Comes pretty close, IMHO.
Am I the only one who understands English around here?
In other words, he appears to be saying that people are not going to take action to solve the (so-called) problem unless you hammer them over the head with it at every opportunity. If it's handled normally as part of the news cycle, it's not going to upset people enough to make them want to do anything about it. Yeah, he was a lot wordier than he needed to be saying it, but I guess to him it sounded better, and more scholarly, than coming right out and saying "We need to scare the s--t out of people."
Except that he didn't say "over-representation of facts." Your grasp of English should tell you that the modified noun is "presentations" and that "factual" is an adjective.
Gee, I wonder why they haven't?
Your definition sounds a lot like "over-presenting" than "over-REpresenting." The dictionary definitions I have reviewed quickly leave room for doubt as to his meaning. In any event, using your definition, what Gore proposes is essentially to lie about the importance of the issue by presenting it in a way that suggests a critical situation when it does not exist. If such a critical situation existed, how could one OVER-represent it?
For example, how could I OVER-warn you about a bridge out ahead when the consequence of continuing on the road is certain injury or death? On the other hand, I could easily OVER-warn you about the dangers of listening to the radio while driving, because the risk is not all that great.
Am I still wrong (as my wife might tell me)?
bttt
We had Freepers here going ecstatic over what they thought was Gore saying that lying is okay. But that's not what he's done, and we'll not do ourselves any favors shouting to the world that he has. All he's done is justify the frequency and volume level with which he shouts his tale to the world. We recognize the tale to be made up of lies, but he hasn't admitted that they are, so why would be compelled to justify them?
You left out what the father of the whole global warming, sky is falling, it's all George W Bushes fault, sharade had to say...
James Hansen of NASA wrote this in Scientific American in March of 2004:
"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."
So he "exagerated" to get the ball rolling, but now he is telling the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.