Gore on the Importance of Over-representation of "Fact"
Here is a quote that appeared on Right Wing News which originally came from National Review Online: The Corner.
"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
Just in case you missed it (and because it's just too darn good not to repeat): "Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is". (Emphasis mine).
So it's okay to over-represent (read: lie about) any" factual presentations" to get what you want, mass hysteria over what arguably may not be a problem at all. What happened to good science with verifiable data and reasonable discussions over actual issues in an attempt to discover the truth?
Asides: A great read which is based on serious research is State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Of special interest is the appendix that highlights the research on global warming.
Also, if you click on the Right Wing News link, you can access the full discussion, some of it just fun, other parts of it containing factual information that may be valuable.
posted by Anna Venger @ 2:35 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Hey! I linked to you off of RWN. Nice blog you have here. Interesting discussion below on abortion. I'll be back!
Thanks for your kind words. Welcome and feel free to join in the fun, Jannymae.
I think it's pretty consistent for someone with Gore's or any other liberal's worldview to think that lying is perfectly acceptible for the desired end. This is the kind of morality practiced by marxists: any means is justified by the end goal. It's perfectly fine to say or do whatever you have to in order to achieve the end goal, no matter how awful the things may be. The goal sanctifies all those acts by its nature.
It's a sort of offshoot to what I call the "Clinton Effect" where someone can be as loathesome and horrible as can be, as long as they hold certain politically correct ideals and policies. Abortion? Check. Affirmative Action? Check. OK you can be a serial adulterer and sexual harasser who's accused of rape repeatedly through his career. That's perfectly fine, you passed the test.
What we should be is moral idealists, people who seek to do what is right in every step along the way, to follow and obey a proper ethic at each choice with the goal of being unerring in moral action.
I think the first thing to do is find out what the truth is, through the hype and the media storm. And at some point you can then start to have an intelligent and rational response, to act wisely and with discernment. Presuming that the hype is all correct is not what a discerning person ought to do. Certainly presuming that Al Gore's version of events is so true that he's ok to lie about things to get his point across is without rational basis.
Martha,
Have you seen Al Gore's carbon footprint?
I'm sure that because he works so hard for the envionment it is acceptable that he consumes more fuel in a day than I will in ten years.
Our weather and ecosystem is immensely complex but I have a few questions about global warming that I'm sure you'll consider stage five denial:
Didn't the last ice age end with a warmer climate before fossil fuels were being consumed by five billion human beings?
Is it possible that our world is affected more by variations in the radiance of the sun than by our own actions? Isn't it a little egotistical to believe that in the last century we can wreak havoc on an entire ecosystem that was working just fine without us for millions of years.
Even if the above are not remotely possibilities, I that it's a given that we should recycle and conserve - heck I wash and reuse my zip lock bags out a couple of times before they get tossed. I recycle and usually use plastic bottles more than once. Of course we should be good stewards of what we have.
The politics behind global warming concern me.
Somehow it always seems so right to blame the United States for the brunt of global warming as the last superpower. Global warming has turned into a topic that is easy to point the finger at our country, for others to demand we stop using our resources in manners they disapprove of, while they are allowed to continue as they have for decades, giving them a chance to "catch up" as it were.
As one of the world's last superpowers, no one really has sway over us. However, the idea that the U.S. - by its inherent greed - has inadvertently caused the world to come to an end appeals to quite a few nations that have not prospered as we have. And, if this scare-tactic can cause concerned, honorable, well-meaning citizens such as yourself to force our government to agree to something like Kyoto, all the better.
I think it suspect at best.
Yes, we need an effective energy policy. Yes, we need to conserve. No, we do not need to do so at the cost of what would effectively be our own soverignty if others governed how we used our own natural resources.
Martha: So Al Gore is saying that Americans are idiots because they question a group that admittedly will skew the "facts" to serve their purpose? How much of the research in the field of global warming is being performed by people who believe in the ideological goals of the left? And those ideological goals are that industry is bad, feel-good pot-smokes in the countryside are good. Bigwigs flying in Lears are bad, government control of everything is good. How do you break industry? Overburden it with regulations that raise fixed costs and cut profits.
For all of the BS going on right now about wiretaps and leaked CIA agents, it's amazing the MSM doesn't ask for the actual experimentals for the research done to prove that human-induced global warming exists. Oh wait, they tend to believe in liberal philosophies too, why would they want to report fact? Or maybe they're just over-representing the "facts," assuming that global warming scientists' research equals facts.
I'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that President Bush (or those providing him with intelligence) did almost the same thing with "over-representing" reasons for the Iraq war.
I guess both sides use the same tactics when it's in their best interest.
I don't trust anyone in the government -- they all lie. They care more about votes keeping them in their cushy positions than they do about representing their constituents. It's very sad.
While it does seem more difficult to find an honest politician than to find high quality diamonds at Goodwill store prices, I don't think it's fair to say the reasons for the war were necessarily over-represented in that the intelligence that Clinton and then Bush had access to was the same---Iraq had WMD. If you read the book Germs by Judith Miller, you will see that all the reports said WMD; the investigators were given the go round and the stuff they did actually see all said WMD to them. The fictional Cobra Event was based largely on this data. Clinton absolutely believed at the time there were WMD. So did Bush 41 (I think that was the number). Also, there are voice recordings and other quotes by most of the leading liberal politicians saying the same things the White House said bec they had the same intelligence.
But as far as the global warming stuff and its misrepresentation goes, there seems to be a complete hi-jacking of facts. As I mentioned in the original post, a fun read (which is of course quite fictional when it comes to the eco-terrorists) is State of Fear. Crichton portrays the misuse of information quite well, but of special significance is the appendix.
Nice post! I have more on JttR.
No, people have brought up the "overrepresenting" accusation against President Bush every single place someone has blogged on this story. It's false, but some people can't help themselves when it comes to Iraq and President Bush.
Consider: the entire planet agreed with the Bush administration analysis of the threat and the intel. President Clinton agreed, so did the UN, so did France, Germany, and Russia. Russia even released info that their intelligence indicated Iraq planned a terrorist strike on the US but the invasion had interrupted planning.
There's a big difference between "relying on intelligence that is later partially inaccurate" and "deliberately lying and exaggerating." At least I should think anyone can understand that.
At least I should think anyone can understand that.
It seems that basically it is over, the whole "Iraq had no WMDs" meme that the Old Press was so desperate to establish is established and so on. Even with the conservative tilt to the New Media, sometimes the Old Press is still going to win.
I'd like to blame the Republicans for not smashing through it but you can't really smash through things based on a nuance like: "There were WMDs found, just not the stockpiles that we thought were there." etc. when the Old Press is establishing a template by releasing thousands of stories, dutifully repeated by mentally incompetent reports off of the wires. For example, go all the way back to the Kay report and read it, then compare it to the stories released about it. To summarize, Kay: "Here are a few of the WMDs and laboratories we've found so far. We haven't found everything." vs. the Old Press: "No WMDs found!" So you have one report vs. a thousand biased stories about it, not every reporter is biased, as the lazy and incompetent get mixed in.
Yet it seems to me that it is getting to the point where conservatives cannot blame Republicans for not standing up and so on. For instance, it is partly my fault for not writing editorials, comments, debating, blogging, etc.etc., as well as the rest who could and should.
To be clear, it has not been verified that Iraq had WMD stockpiles but it has been verified that they had WMDs, as well as WMD programs based on underground labs engaging in human experiments, etc. Apparently if things are left to the Left then they will just let it all go on and on until WMD programs become WMD stockpiles that then fall into the hands of terrorists in one way or another.
Post a Comment
<< Home