Did Al Gore justify lying about global warming? Here's a quote:
I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it 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.That's from an interview in Grist Magazine. Is Al saying that environmentalists should lie about global warming to get a reaction?
It seems that the first person to make a big deal out of this quote was a professional spinmeister, Patrick Michaels, who appeared on Hannity & Colmes on May 16 to talk about Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
It took about a week, but the right wing blogosphere soon picked up the story. May 25 was a big day, with the quote appearing on The New Republic. It also appeared on the Free Republic Discussion group and at Libertypost.org. It quickly spread from blog to blog, appearing at Say Anything, Rightwingnation, Bureacrash.com, and Annavenger, among many others.
It moved well beyond Rightwingerland (see Life in the Banana Patch). A poll on Bestandworse.com asks: "Do you agree with his [Al Gore's] sentiment, that it's okay to knowingly deceive the public as to the extent of the problem if it means that more people will come to your side? Do the ends justify the means?"
But is that what Al really said?
I won't reprint the entire interview because of copyright concerns, but you should read it and note that the question is: "Do you scare people or give them hope?" Gore was responding to the question of how best to approach the issue of global warming. He said, "It's best, depending on your audience, to focus on the dangers before talking about solutions."
It's an interesting case study in the exceptional aptitude of humans to deceive themselves. Right-wing bloggers seized on this quote because it justified their beliefs. Those in the middle saw it and questioned Gore's reliability as a source. The speed of the Information Autobahn just perpetuated this misinformation.
Now, the damage is done.
Article comments
1 - Bryan McKay
Also, "over-representation" doesn't mean lying or exaggerating. An "over-representation of factual information" simply means (to me) to inundate listeners with facts to really drill them in. They need to be over-represented because a lot of people don't care enough when they've only been represented one or two times.
2 - Joey
Given the current state of the education system and the cumulative effect on the listening audience, one may want to rethink the strategy. Every "motivational" speaker I have had the pleasure to meet doesn't use that strategy. And really, isn't moving an audience to a certain point in ones presentation... motivation?
3 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Quoting one question and answer from an interview is not usually considered a copyright violation as long as proper credit is given.
Fear mongering -- whether it is about terrorism, obesity, secret surveillance, cigarette smoking, guns, drugs, diseases, the economy, or the environment -- destroys credibility because it carries with it the suggestion that its audience is unable to understand reason and therefore must be frightened out of complacency and into compliance.
It is one thing to create an attention-getting movie trailer (whose purpose is entirely capitalistic, BTW), but it is quite another to make suggestions about how one's fellow Americans "live in a bubble of unreality" and "Category 5 denial" and how one believes that, in the face of all that, it is "appropriate" to "[over-represent] factual presentations,"
Mr. Gore is not going to win very many friends or influence very many people with such talk. And he has unintentionally provided some rather rich fodder for those who might wish to discredit him.
Had Mr. Gore asserted a positive message of hope, he might have opened a few minds instead of arming his ideological enemies.
4 - Futuregeek
Margaret,
Thanks for posting the full question and answer.
...It is one thing to create an attention-getting movie trailer (whose purpose is entirely capitalistic, BTW)....
Why the aside about capitalistic intent? Do you think I'm an anti-capitalist?
5 - Clavos
Why the aside about capitalistic intent? Do you think I'm an anti-capitalist?
Doesn't matter whether you are or not, Futuregeek, but it sure gives an interesting insight to Gore's motives.
6 - Victor Plenty
Clearly the right wing agrees with Mr. Gore on this point. Why else would they create such a vast network of over-representation for every fact they think it's important for the populace to know about? On every issue from immigration to gay marriage, endless repetition of key talking points (sometimes factual, sometimes not so much) is what brought the right wing to its current position of power. It's so cute that they now querulously object to Gore's restatement of their own most successful strategem.
7 - Al Barger
Reading the question and Al Gore's full answer as Miss Margaret helpfully posted in comment 3, it appears that Al Gore is in fact saying - in his own mealy-mouthed way - just exactly what he is accused of.
The fact that this confirms my prior beliefs about Gore does not make it untrue. Even people who are not particularly rightwingers know that Gore is a grotesque serial liar, repeatedly just making up any kind of ignorant story that suits his purposes at the moment. His ends-justify-the-means logic is absolutely typical of him.
Taking it outside of a directly political issue, think back to him campaigning in front of a union audience, recounting tender memories of mother singing "Look for the Union Label" as a lullaby to baby Al- when the song hadn't even been written yet. Then imagine what kind of lies he would feel justified in telling over something where he's convinced himself that the future of humanity is at stake.
If you want to cut him some slack, you could perhaps argue over whether he's lying a lot, or merely delusional.
8 - Victor Plenty
People see what they want to, and this is a textbook case. Being neither left nor right, neither Republican nor Democrat, I can clearly see both possible interpretations of Gore's words. It will be fun to watch both sides shout that theirs is the only possible interpretation.
Of course, Gore wouldn't be in this pickle if he'd picked a clearer wording for whatever it was he really wanted to say.
9 - Futuregeek
I can clearly see both possible interpretations of Gore's words.
You're right, it can be interpreted both ways... but the issue is not how it can be interpreted, but what he meant to say.
Al Gore is certainly no "great communicator."
10 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I intended to differentiate fear mongering for economic reasons from fear mongering for political reasons, but I was not terribly clear and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I have found that most people don't really think in stark terms of red or blue, but rather in varying shades of purple, so I try never to make assumptions about anybody's general ideology. Perhaps you are less pro-capitalism than I, but I could be wrong, everything being relative.
11 - Baronius
Futuregeek, as we've talked about before, there's a strong sense of superiority in the environmentalist movement. Both moral superiority and intellectual superiority. Either one is hard to stomach by itself; together they are unbearable.
I'm not sure what the Gore quote means. It looks to me more like bad phrasing than an admission of guilt. What I find most objectionable about the quote is his distain for the unenlightened masses. "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality." Well, thank God that Al Gore is above the rest of us! He'll tell us what to do!
Ultimately, it's academic whether a leader lies to the idiots, exaggerates to the idiots, or tells the truth to the idiots despite their idiocy. What matters is the contempt the leader feels for his people.
12 - Futuregeek
What I find most objectionable about the quote is his distain for the unenlightened masses. "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality."
I think, with American media what it is, that you don't have to have a disdain for the American people to believe that they live in "a bubble of unreality."
The left and the right have criticisms of American media, as you well know, and much of that criticism is valid. Add to that the fast pace of our lives, the fact that most Americans are too busy making a living to think beyond soundbites (we work more than most industrialized countries, with fewer vacations, etc.), and a heavy dose of corporate PR, and what do you get?
There were very smart people living and working in Nazi Germany, too, and they knew nothing about the Holocaust and were quite proud of Hitler. If I state that fact, does that mean I have contempt for those people, or am I just stating a fact?
13 - Futuregeek
That said, Gore is no "great communicator."
14 - amazingdrx
Yep it was a question about balancing the focus between the danger posed by global climate change and possible solutions.
High light the danger to get their attention, then present solutions. And that approach worked well in Gore's movie. No big lie tactics, like the WMD lying is needed, "Just the facts ma'am" (Joe Friday).
It's like the old saw about how you train a mule. First you need to wack him in the head with a 2 by 4 to get his attention.
The stuborn, faithbased, hummer loving, gas guzzling, Bush voting, global climate disaster deniers being the "mule" in this case. The minions of the Evil Lord Cheney of Halliburton use the gullible patriotism of this group to further their wicked agenda of corporate global feudalism.
The oily nuke-you-ler powered United Corporate States of Earth. Hehey.
15 - troll
but come on - "over-representation of factual presentations"...WTF - speak english man
where's his editor - ?
troll
16 - CanisCandida
The ill-chosen verb was in fact the subject of a fair amount of discussion among the original readers of the interview at Grist, on several threads. David Roberts, the editor, who also conducted the interview, has painstakingly explained a number of times that Al Gore's intentions were neither morally nor intellectually shameful.
17 - Baronius
Geek, I've been thinking about soccer recently. (I'm going somewhere with this, so stay with me.) I've never heard soccer called "soccer", and I've never heard it called "football". It's always called "football, or what you Americans call soccer".
No country likes to be treated like idiots. Or, to put it more accurately, no one likes to be called an idiot because of the country he lives in. I don't know if drx is a money-hungry SUV-eating American, but if he is, he doesn't seem proud of it. Either way, if he is or isn't American, he's not going to persuade people by belittling them.
Perhaps, rather than over-representions or condescensions, the environmentalist movement should try to convince adults that they are correct. Take their lumps, admit when they've been wrong. Don't use Captain Planet as a spokesman. Don't use try to use credentials to awe people. Recognize that a good chunk of the country distrusts you, and try to win them over.
Don't brag about how foreigners are united against an American policy.
And if they fail to win support, they have to accept that the failure is partly their fault. That's the brutal truth in a democracy: if your movement failed, it's because you failed.
18 - shamus
It's quite clear that by 'over-representation' he is indicating that he wants to present as many facts as possible so that there is no room for doubt about the issue of global climate change.
It would ridiculous for him to say that he was exagerrating or lieing. It's not necessary first of all and secondly why would he undermine his own carefully presented argument?