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."
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)?